activate_signature_request

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

Annotations are all false/absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that activation sends notifications and permanently prevents adding documents or signatories, which is critical behavioral context beyond the annotations. It also implies the mutation side effects (irreversible lock).

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 dense but not bloated; it front-loads the core action and then adds necessary workflow context. Every sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly more concise given the density.

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 description covers the full operational context: required prior steps, the effect of activation (notifications sent, lock on additions), and a recommended alternative (signature_request_full). With an output schema present, not explaining return values is acceptable, and the description is complete for an agent to decide and invoke 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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter (signatureRequestId), and the schema already explains it is a mandatory UUID obtained from create_signature_request. The description repeats this requirement but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline 3.

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 ('Activates a signature request, sending signing notifications to every added signatory') and the resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting the post-activation lock (no more documents or signatories can be added) and by referencing alternative tools for adding roles before activation.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: prerequisites (create_signature_request → signatureRequestId, documents with bytes uploaded, signatories per document) and alternatives (add_validator_to_signatory / add_observer_to_document before activating; prefer signature_request_full for a new request). This clearly differentiates when to use this tool vs siblings.

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