void_envelope

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a destructive action (void/cancel), requires a specific status ('sent'), has side effects (cancels signatures, notifies signers), and includes an optional 'reason' parameter. It doesn't cover error cases or permissions, but provides substantial context.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and prerequisite, the second explains the outcome. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 fairly complete for a destructive tool. It covers the action, prerequisites, and effects. However, it lacks details on error handling, return values, or permissions, which could be useful for full contextual understanding.

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 both parameters. The description implies the 'envelope_id' must refer to an active envelope in 'sent' status and mentions the 'reason' parameter is optional, adding minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('void/cancel') and resource ('an active envelope'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_envelope' or 'send_envelope'. It specifies the envelope must be in 'sent' status, adding precision beyond the tool name.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (envelope in 'sent' status) and mentions the outcome (cancels pending signatures, notifies signers). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'delete_envelope' for other scenarios.

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