signature_request_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the multi-step behavior (create, add documents/signatories, activate), the draft-mode behavior with activate:false, and the return payload (request id, document ids, signatory ids). This goes beyond the schema and clearly communicates side effects and outputs.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence contributes essential information: the main flow, the file contract, the draft option, and return/alternatives. It is slightly dense but efficient, with no wasted words.

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?

For a tool with nested documents/signatories and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the overall workflow, the activate flag, the file input contract, return values, and when to use alternatives. It does not detail every nested parameter, but the schema provides that, so the description is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the shared FileInput contract ('local path, base64, https URL, or n8n binary item — never a bespoke file field') and by explaining the activate parameter's purpose for draft creation. This is meaningful beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Creates a signature request, adds one or more documents (each with its own signatories), and activates it.' It explicitly differentiates from the atomic siblings by naming the alternative sequence (create_signature_request + add_document... + add_signatory... + activate_signature_request), making the tool's scope and distinctiveness unambiguous.

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 guidance: 'Use the atomic tools instead when you need to inspect or react to each intermediate step, or need validators/observers before activation.' It also explains the activate:false draft option for adding validators/observers. However, the 'need validators/observers before activation' clause is slightly contradictory given the activate:false path, so it's not perfectly clear.

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