signature_request_create

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

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but no further details. Description adds that it creates in DRAFT status, requires UUID v4 id, deadline max 30 days, and returns requestId, going beyond 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?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: main action, prerequisites, parameter details, and post-creation instructions. No redundancy, efficient for agent parsing.

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?

Covers creation workflow, prerequisites, and follow-up actions. Missing detailed explanations of optional parameters and return format beyond 'requestId', but sufficient for context given sibling tools and annotations.

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%, so description compensates for some parameters: 'id' (UUID v4), 'deadline' (ISO 8601 max 30 days), 'caseFileId' (from case_file_create). However, it does not explain 'name', 'language', 'sequence', 'objectiveId', 'dashboardUrl', 'signatureType', or 'closeCondition', leaving gaps.

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 it creates a signature request in DRAFT status, specifying verb 'creates' and resource 'signature request'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'signature_request_cancel' and 'signature_request_add_document' by defining the creation entry point.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites ('requires case_file_create → caseFileId') and subsequent steps ('add documents...before activating'), guiding the agent on the correct workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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