add_signature_tag

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Place') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and key usage methods. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it front-loaded and efficient for quick understanding.

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?

Given the complexity of a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), output expectations, error handling, and integration with sibling tools. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty about proper invocation and outcomes.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by hinting at the two positioning methods ('placeholder' vs. 'coordinates'), which aligns with parameters like 'placeholder', 'positioning', 'page', 'xPosition', and 'yPosition'. However, it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema specifies, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Place') and resource ('signature or form tag on a document'), specifying it's for adding tags to documents. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_tags' or 'send_envelope' by focusing on placement rather than listing or sending. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential overlapping tools like 'upload_and_attach_document' in terms of document modification scope.

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 implies usage by mentioning two positioning methods ('placeholder for text-based positioning or coordinates for exact placement'), which suggests when to use each approach. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tags' for viewing or 'send_envelope' for finalizing, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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