signature_coordinate_set

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

The description correctly indicates a mutation operation (setting coordinates) with no destructive hint contradiction. It adds behavioral context like the coordinate format (page, x, y) and that it applies to PDFs. It does not discuss whether the operation is idempotent or any side effects, but annotations already provide basic hints.

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 verbose but all sentences contribute essential information: main action, prerequisites, signature types, coordinate format, and timing. It could be slightly trimmed, but it is well-organized and front-loaded.

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 covers inputs and prerequisites well, but lacks information about the return value or error behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally mention what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation). This gap reduces completeness for a mutation 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%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains that coordinates are an array of objects with page (1-based), x (points from left), y (points from bottom), and that the IDs come from prior steps. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though individual parameters are not detailed separately.

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 explicitly states the tool sets the visual position of a signature field on a PDF. It distinguishes the tool by specifying required document type (PDF), signature types (INTERPOSITION and ADVANCED), and the sequential context (before activation). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like signature_participant_create or activate_signature_request.

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 clearly defines when to use the tool: after document upload and before activate_signature_request, and as a required step for PDF signatures. It lists the prerequisite IDs and steps. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the context is clear enough.

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