add_validator_to_signatory

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

The description explains the validator's function (approve identity/document) and sequencing constraints, adding context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). However, it omits potential edge cases such as adding after activation or any idempotency effects.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: definition, timing, prerequisites/alternative. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant wording.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers the concept, ordering, prerequisites, and an alternative integration path. An output schema exists, so return values are not required. It could mention any limits on validator count or post-activation behavior, but overall it is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 33% (documentId and signatoryId have descriptions). The description reinforces the provenance of these IDs but adds little for name/email/phone/surnames, which are left to the schema's basic types. It does not compensate for the missing parameter explanations.

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 'Adds a validator to a document's signatory' and defines the validator's role. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_signatory_to_document and add_observer_to_document by specifying the approval/validation purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Add validators BEFORE activate_signature_request' and lists required prior calls (add_document_to_signature_request → documentId, add_signatory_to_document → signatoryId). It also mentions the alternative of using signature_request_full, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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