turbosign_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It warns 'THERE IS NO SANDBOX,' states emails reach real inboxes, and that documents 'cannot be recalled, only voided.' This is exceptional disclosure of production impact, far beyond typical mutation warnings.

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 logically organized: a safety warning, a pre-flight checklist, parameter definitions, and return value. Every sentence contributes essential information—no filler or repetition.

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 11 parameters and no annotations, the description still covers purpose, safe usage, parameter semantics, and return value. The output schema provides return structure, and the description adds 'Returns the document_id — keep it, every other tool needs it' to support tool chaining. This is fully complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. It thoroughly explains the critical parameters: file_path, recipients, placement (including all four enum values and their behavior), and sequential. However, it leaves 7 optional parameters (e.g., anchor, fields, cc_emails, sender_name) with little or no direct explanation, though these are mostly self-explanatory and have defaults.

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?

Description opens with 'Send a document out for signature' — a clear verb+resource pair. It further distinguishes itself from the sibling turbosign_review by explicitly noting review 'takes these exact arguments and emails nobody,' making send's role as the actual email-sending tool unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: on new machines or accounts, run turbosign_whoami(verify=True) then turbosign_review() first, and make the first real send to your own address. This names the alternative (turbosign_review) and sets clear preconditions for safe use.

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