chaprola_sign_baa

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral constraints: it must never be invoked automatically, requires prior human approval, and is specific to PHI contexts. This exceeds typical transparency and clearly signals the irreversible/contractual nature of signing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and uses a strong STOP directive to highlight the prerequisite. Every sentence contributes critical information without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple signing tool with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description fully covers the safety protocol, the use case (PHI vs non-PHI), and the required sequence. No significant gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (organization, signatory_name, signatory_title). The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Sign the BAA', which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like chaprola_baa_text (which shows the text) and chaprola_baa_status (which checks status). The purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when this tool is needed ('Only needed for PHI — non-PHI data works without a BAA') and provides a mandatory prerequisite: call chaprola_baa_text first, show the full text, and obtain explicit typed approval. It also gives a clear negative instruction ('Never sign automatically'), which is excellent usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.