add_document_to_signature_request

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

Annotations carry no behavioral hints (all false), so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the two-step upload behavior, the need to PUT file bytes to a returned URL, and explains signature type semantics in detail. However, it does not address idempotency, failure modes, or side effects beyond the workflow, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 a single dense paragraph but well-structured with clear progression: purpose, workflow, prerequisites, and signature type definitions. Each sentence contributes value without fluff. It could be slightly more scannable with bullets, but overall it is concise for the complexity it covers.

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 the tool's complexity (15 parameters, nested objects) and 13% schema coverage, the description covers the critical workflow and key parameters but omits many optional ones. It also references related tools (create_signature_request, add_signatory_to_document, signature_request_full), giving it enough context for an agent to operate. Missing optional parameter explanations prevent a 5.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for signatureType (explains the three enum values) and hash (specifies SHA-256), and clarifies signatureRequestId's origin. However, many parameters (detached, fileSize, metadata, provider, sequence, evidenceId, description, convertToPdf, certificateFiles, signatureDeadline) remain undocumented, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Adds a document to a signature request.' It also distinguishes the tool by framing it as the first step of a 2-step upload process, which separates it from sibling tools like notification_document_add or evidence_upload_url_create. The scope is 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: it names prerequisites (create_signature_request, SHA-256 hash), describes the sequential workflow (add document, PUT bytes, add signatories, activate), and mentions an alternative composite tool (signature_request_full). It also states 'Use once per document that needs signing,' offering clear when-to-use direction.

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