digisign-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it creates a draft (implying a write operation) and returns an envelope ID, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, whether drafts are saved automatically, or error handling. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and resource, the second clarifies the return value and its use. It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it covers the purpose and return value, but lacks behavioral details like auth requirements or error cases. For a creation tool with 5 parameters, it should provide more context on usage scenarios or limitations to be fully adequate.

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 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the 'name' is required (as stated in schema) and that the tool returns an envelope ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Create a new draft envelope') and resource ('for digital signature'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'send_envelope' or 'cancel_envelope' which operate on existing envelopes. It specifies the creation of a draft (not sent) envelope, which is a precise 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 stating it creates a draft envelope and returns an ID for subsequent operations, suggesting it's an initial step before using tools like 'add_recipient' or 'send_envelope'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., direct sending) or any prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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