turbosign_resend

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of explaining behavior. It usefully discloses that only recipients whose turn it is in the signing order will be emailed, which is a nontrivial constraint. But it does not mention error handling for invalid IDs, whether the operation is idempotent, or any permissions needed. This is a moderate disclosure, not comprehensive.

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: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides necessary parameter detail and a key behavior. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 moderate-complexity tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the action, the target recipients, the source of the IDs, and the eligibility rule. It omits possible error scenarios and return value details, but the output schema likely covers response structure. The description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does explain recipient_ids as a comma-separated list of UUIDs sourced from turbosign_status(). This adds significant meaning. document_id is not explained, but it is a standard identifier and less ambiguous; still, it could have been clarified. Overall strong compensation for the schema gap.

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: 'Resend the signature request email to recipients who have not signed.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'recipients who have not signed' qualifier distinguishes it from the initial send tool (turbosign_send). It is not tautological and provides 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 when to use this tool: to nudge signers who haven't signed yet. It also instructs users to retrieve recipient_ids from turbosign_status(), giving a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like turbosign_send or state when not to use it, though the 'resend' and 'not signed' context makes this fairly clear.

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