turbosign_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: 'WITHOUT emailing anyone' and that it returns a preview URL. It also implies the document is only prepared, not sent, which is critical context. However, it doesn't mention any limitations like URL expiry or document retention, so it's not fully transparent.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the key point. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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?

Despite the clear use case and preview URL behavior, the tool has 11 parameters and 0% schema coverage. The description's reliance on 'Same arguments as turbosign_send' doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description only says 'Same arguments as turbosign_send' without explaining any of the 11 parameters. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, and the agent must look up another tool to understand required parameters like file_path and recipients.

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 tool prepares a document and returns a preview URL without emailing anyone. It uses a specific verb+resource combination and explicitly differentiates from turbosign_send by highlighting the absence of emailing.

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 tells when to use this tool: 'to check where the signature boxes landed before committing to a real send' and 'Worth doing the first time you send a particular kind of document.' This clearly frames it as a pre-send dry run, distinguishing it from the actual send tool.

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