fenbs_request_signoff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses that each signer receives an email, that the item sits in 'Awaiting sign-off' until all approve, that approval leads to 'Decided (and locked)', and that a permission to change tasks is required. It omits edge behavior such as a decline path, revocation, or re-request after rejection.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the sentences are short. The conversational asides ('Say what was decided first', 'You can ask; you can never sign') carry information, though the em-dash-heavy aphoristic style costs a little economy.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, so the description must stand alone; it covers the lifecycle (Awaiting sign-off -> Decided/locked), notification side effect, and permission requirement. The main gap is the unexplained 'ref' identifier needed to target the decision.

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 50%: 'signers' is documented in the schema (and confirmed in the description as 'the complete list of signers, by email'), but 'ref' has no schema description and the description only gestures at it with 'Say what was decided first'. The description partially compensates but does not fully define what ref must point to.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Ask board members to formally sign a decision off') and clarifies the payload is the complete signer list by email. It is easy to tell apart from siblings like update_decision or add_decision, though it never names an alternative tool.

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?

It gives real context for use: 'Say what was decided first' establishes sequencing, and 'Needs permission to change tasks' establishes a prerequisite. It also rules out a tempting misuse ('you can never sign -- a sign-off is a person, signed in'), but offers no explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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