send_envelope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the envelope must be in 'draft' status and have recipients/fields configured. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what happens after sending (e.g., status change).

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('send a draft envelope for signing') and includes essential prerequisites without waste. Every part earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple tool with one parameter. It covers the purpose and prerequisites but lacks details on return values or error handling, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'envelope_id' parameter as a UUID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it refers to a draft envelope, aligning with the schema but not providing extra value.

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 action ('send a draft envelope for signing') and resource ('envelope'), specifying it must be in 'draft' status. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_and_send' by focusing on sending existing drafts, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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?

The description implies usage by stating prerequisites ('draft' status, recipients, fields configured), which helps determine when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'create_and_send' for creating and sending in one step.

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