sign_action

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

Without annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: compliance_mode triggers a Compliance Receipt with hash-only wire envelope, and it requires payload to be supplied. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with Args list, but it is slightly verbose for the compliance_mode explanation. Still, every sentence adds value, no tautology.

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 no annotations and full parameter descriptions, plus an output schema (not needing return value explanation), the description covers essential aspects. Minor gap: no example or expected behavior summary.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: agent_id, action_type, action_id, payload (optional, JSON), and compliance_mode (with detailed effect). This is comprehensive.

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 creates a signed audit record for an AI agent action. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('signed audit record'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_policy or gate_action which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gate_action, complete_action). It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or typical usage scenarios.

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