add_observer_to_document

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write operation, and the description's 'Adds' is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the observer's read-only visibility, the timing constraint relative to activation, and the required prior calls. There is no contradiction between the description and annotations.

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 two tightly packed sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and role definition, then gives the critical timing constraint and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists, return-value documentation is not needed. The description covers what the tool does, the observer's role, when to call it, and the required prior calls. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could have added more detail about what happens if an observer is added twice or whether an invitation email is sent.

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 40%, so the description carries partial burden. It does add meaning for signatureRequestId and documentId by naming the prerequisite calls that produce them, though the schema descriptions already say 'Obtain from create_signature_request' and 'Obtain from add_document_to_signature_request.' It does not meaningfully explain name, email, or surnames beyond the schema, and it does not explicitly map all four required fields to the observer's identity.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Adds an observer to a signature request's document.' It then defines the observer role as read-only visibility without signing, which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_signatory_to_document and add_validator_to_signatory. The purpose is unambiguous and scoped.

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 explicitly states when this must happen: 'Add observers BEFORE activate_signature_request.' It also names the required prerequisite chain: create_signature_request → signatureRequestId and add_document_to_signature_request → documentId. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X,' but the 'without signing' phrasing and sequencing provide clear operational context.

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