send_envelope

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions prerequisites but does not cover critical aspects such as whether this is a mutation (implied by 'send'), what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what happens after sending (e.g., envelope status changes). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the action and prerequisites without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with essential conditions, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 sending an envelope (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), output expectations, or how it integrates with sibling tools. The prerequisites are helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'envelopeId' documented as 'Envelope UUID'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about this parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. Thus, it meets 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 ('send a draft envelope for signature') and specifies the resource ('envelope'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'create_envelope' or 'discard_envelope', which might involve envelope handling but with different intents.

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 prerequisites ('requires at least one document, one signer, and signature tags placed'), suggesting it should be used when a draft envelope is ready. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_envelope' (for initial setup) or 'cancel_envelope' (for stopping), leaving some ambiguity.

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