send_from_templateCreate and send a document from a saved template, assigning one signer per role in order or by 0-based slot for e-signature collection.
Create and send a document from a saved template. Give one signer per role, in role order or with an explicit 0-based slot. Counts as one billable unit like send_document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| signers | Yes | ||
| sequential | No | ||
| template_id | Yes | ||
| expires_days | No |
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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that sends count as a billable unit and explains signer-to-role assignment, but it omits permissions, reversibility or void behavior, and failure handling for role or slot mismatches.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and signer contract. The billing note is short and relevant, with 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 six-parameter send mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the signer assignment and billable-unit behavior but not expiry, sequential signing, permissions, or what happens after sending.
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 explains the central signers array and 0-based slot behavior well, but leaves title, message, sequential, template_id, and expires_days without added meaning.
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: create and send a document from a saved template. This inherently distinguishes it from send_document and list_templates, but it does not explicitly route between this tool and the sibling send tool.
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?
Use is implied by requiring a template_id and by the comparison to send_document, but the description does not state when to choose this over send_document or list_templates. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.