signature_participant_create

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

Disclosures beyond annotations: state requirement (DRAFT), role-specific mandatory conditions, WhatsApp limitations, return value (signatoryId), and constraints for VALIDATOR role. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is a single paragraph with about 10 sentences, efficiently conveying complex rules. Could be improved with bullet points for readability, but every sentence adds necessary context and no redundant information.

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 tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers prerequisites, role-specific rules, WhatsApp delivery, return value, and links to sibling tools. No output schema is provided, but the description clarifies the return, making it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for key parameters: role enum values, phonePrefix/phoneNumber context for signature types, and restrictions on groupId/linkToAllDocuments for VALIDATOR. Other parameters (email, firstName, etc.) are standard and self-explanatory. Partial compensation for low schema coverage.

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 'Adds a participant (signatory, observer, or validator) to a DRAFT signature request,' identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like signature_participant_list and assign_validator_to_signatory by focusing on creation and linking to related tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (DRAFT requests only), lists required prior steps (signature_request_add_document, etc.), explains role-specific requirements (ADVANCED mandatory phone, INTERPOSITION optional phone, WhatsApp delivery details), and provides clear exclusion (do not include groupId/linkToAllDocuments for VALIDATOR role, use assign_validator_to_signatory instead).

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