Remove a collaborator from an eSignature template to manage access permissions and maintain template integrity.
Removes the template collaborator
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| template_id | Yes | Templates's GUID. | |
| template_collaborator_id | Yes | Collaborator's GUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Removes' reveals the core mutation but does not disclose whether the removal is permanent, whether it affects collaborator access elsewhere, or whether any authorization is required. The lack of side-effect or reversibility context leaves the agent under-informed for a destructive operation.
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 one short sentence with no filler and the main verb is front-loaded. It loses one point only because the terseness omits a little context that would make the resource unambiguous.
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?
The tool is simple, has fully documented parameters, and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, with no annotations and no mention of permanence or side effects, it is only adequately complete rather than richly specified.
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% and both parameters have GUID descriptions, so the schema already documents the inputs. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, which fits the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Removes') with a specific resource ('the template collaborator'), and the sibling set includes add_template_collaborator and list_template_collaborators, so an agent can distinguish this removal operation immediately.
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 states only what the tool does, with no guidance on when to use it, when not to use it, or how it relates to add_template_collaborator/list_template_collaborators. It is not misleading, but an agent gets no decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.