add_validator_to_signatory

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

Annotations already carry readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the description only needs to add operational context. It does so by explaining the validator's approval role)Skip and the ordering requirement before activation, plus the inline composite alternative.

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 four terse sentences with the core behavior front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct information: role, timing, prerequisite chain, and composite alternative. There is no filler or restatement of the schema.

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 that an output schema exists and annotations carry the mutation/idempotency hints, the description provides the essential workflow context: prerequisites, sequencing, and the inline alternative. It does not discuss duplicate-validator behavior or post-activation restrictions, but those are not central to selecting and invoking this tool 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 only 33%, and the description substantially compensates for the two ID parameters by naming their exact source tools. However, name, email, phone, and surnames receive no additional meaning beyond their schema labels, so the description does not fully bridge the coverage gap.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Adds a validator to a document's signatory' and clearly defines what a validator does. The role definition and the activation sequencing separate it from sibling tools like add_signatory_to_document and add_observer_to_document.

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 gives explicit timing guidance ('BEFORE activate_signature_request'), a prerequisite chain for obtaining documentId and signatoryId, and notes that signature_request_full accepts validators inline as an alternative. It does not fully explain when to prefer the composite inline path over this tool, but the relevant workflow context is present.

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