activate_signature_request

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

The description states 'IRREVERSIBLE' and 'ASYNC', but the annotations set destructiveHint=false. This is a contradiction because irreversible state changes are typically considered destructive. Per the scoring rules, a contradiction with annotations yields a score of 1.

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 lengthy but well-structured with important sections clearly separated. It is front-loaded with the main action. While every sentence earns its place, some redundancy could be trimmed for even tighter conciseness.

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 complexity (preconditions, async behavior, two delivery methods, irreversibility), the description covers most critical aspects. It explains polling steps and what not to do. However, it lacks information on output/response and potential errors, which would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema has two required parameters (requestId, caseFileId) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they are used. No value is added beyond the parameter names.

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: 'Activates a signature request, transitioning from DRAFT to ACTIVE and sending signing invitations to all signatories.' This provides a specific verb, resource, and effect, differentiating it from sibling tools like create or cancel.

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 explicitly states when not to call ('Do NOT call this immediately after uploading files'), lists detailed preconditions (DRAFT status, signatory exists, documents uploaded, etc.), and provides guidance on delivery methods (INTERPOSITION vs ADVANCED). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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