assign_validator_to_signatory

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the important detail that 'the validator must approve before the signatory can sign,' which clarifies the approval flow. However, it does not disclose whether calling the tool again replaces or appends validators, leaving ambiguity.

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 two sentences: one for the action and one for prerequisites. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description explains the purpose and prerequisites but omits expected return values or confirmation behavior, which would help the agent understand the result of the operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists the required IDs and their origin tools (e.g., 'validatorId in validatorIds array'), which provides context beyond the bare property names. But it does not explain parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema already specifies via patterns.

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: 'Assigns one or more validators to a specific signatory in a signature request.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like signature_participant_create by focusing on assignment rather than creation.

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 lists prerequisites (creation of validator, signatory, request, case file) and maps them to parameter IDs, guiding the agent on when to use this tool (after those creations) and not before.

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