signature_coordinate_set

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds the context that this is for explicit placement versus auto-positioning and the required preceding steps. However, it does not disclose whether repeated calls overwrite prior coordinates, the coordinate system/units, or what the response contains. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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: the first gives the core function, the second gives the usage condition, and the third lists prerequisites in a compact arrow format. Every sentence carries necessary information, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should convey what the tool returns or accomplishes beyond the mutation. It does not mention whether coordinates is required (schema marks it optional, which is confusing given the tool's purpose), how the coordinate array is structured, or whether the operation returns a success indicator. This ambiguity could lead an agent to invoke the tool incorrectly.

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 75%: the three ID parameters each have descriptions in the schema, and the description restates their source tools in the prerequisites. For the coordinates parameter, the schema only provides its array/object structure; the description says 'on-page (x, y, page) coordinates' but does not explain units, origin, or pagination semantics. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the slight added context for coordinates does not elevate it.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Sets the on-page (x, y, page) coordinates where a signatory's signature appears on a document.' It uses a specific verb ('sets'), names the resource (coordinates for a signatory's signature), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_signatory_to_document by focusing on explicit placement rather than adding a signatory.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use after add_signatory_to_document if the signature placement needs to be explicit rather than auto-positioned.' It also lists the exact prerequisite chain (create_signature_request → signatureRequestId, add_document_to_signature_request → documentId, add_signatory_to_document → signatoryId), which helps the agent sequence the call correctly.

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