remind_documentResend signing links to signers who haven't signed a document, limited to once per hour per document. Use extend_document for expired documents.
Re-send the signing link to everyone who has not signed yet. At most once an hour per document. An expired document cannot be reminded; use extend_document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key operational traits: it sends an outbound email, it is rate limited to once an hour per document, and it fails on expired documents. It stops short of saying what the response contains (per-recipient success/failure, counts) or what happens if some recipients were already reminded.
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?
Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (action, rate limit, failure path), with the core action front-loaded and no filler.
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?
For a one-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers action, scope, throttling, and the failure branch, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is the return value and partial-success behavior, which is minor but not covered anywhere else.
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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate; it only implies that "id" is the document identifier through phrases like "per document." It does not explicitly state that id refers to the document, nor whether it is the document or template id.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Re-send the signing link") and scopes it to "everyone who has not signed yet," which distinguishes it from send_document and send_from_template in the sibling list.
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?
It gives the selection condition (pending signers only), an explicit exclusion (expired documents cannot be reminded), and names the correct alternative for that case (extend_document). That is a complete routing rule against the sibling tool set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.