create_signature_request

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds important context: the tool returns an id that must be used as signatureRequestId in subsequent calls, and it's the entry point for a multi-step flow. This goes beyond basic annotation info and helps the agent understand the side-effect/workflow implications.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by sequencing, a prerequisites statement, and a concrete example. Every element earns its place and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 description gives essential high-level context (top-level container, use-first) and points to the return id handoff. However, given the tool's complexity (12 params, nested objects, many sibling tools), it lacks guidance on key optional parameters and their interplay. The output schema covers return values, but the description leaves significant gaps for a complex creation 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 0%, and with 12 parameters, the description must compensate. It only illustrates 'name' and 'createdBy' via an example and ignores the other 10 parameters (e.g., provider, closeConfig, notifications, signatureRequestBody). The schema provides names and types but not meanings, so the description does not adequately guide parameter usage.

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 'Creates a new signature request — the top-level container for documents and signatories in a signing flow.' This specific verb+resource+role distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_document_to_signature_request and add_signatory_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?

Explicit instruction 'Use this first, before add_document_to_signature_request' provides clear sequencing guidance with a named alternative. 'No prerequisites' adds practical context. However, it doesn't mention situations where this tool should not be used, so it falls short of a 5.

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