add_signatory_to_document

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

Beyond annotations (which only mark non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds key constraints: signatories cannot be added after activation and each call adds one signatory per person. This is valuable behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences with no filler, leading with the action and including the most important usage constraints in a compact form.

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 workflow prerequisites and post-activation restriction are covered, but optional parameters remain unclear and sibling relationships are not explained. Given the low schema coverage and 9 properties, the description is not fully complete.

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 includes 9 properties but only 2 have descriptions (22% coverage). The description mentions signatory name and email and the two IDs from prior steps, but does not explain optional parameters like phone, sequence, surnames, coordinates, or uniqueValidator. This leaves most parameters underspecified.

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 action (Adds) and identifies the resource (signatory) and containment (document within a signature request). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like add_validator_to_signatory and add_observer_to_document by specifying 'who needs to sign'.

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 provides a clear workflow: requires signatureRequestId from create_signature_request and documentId from add_document_to_signature_request, and warns to add all signatories before activation. It states 'Use once per person', giving practical usage, but does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-signatory roles.

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