send_envelope

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the 202 response with jobId, status, envelopeId; explains asynchronous token issuance and emails; mentions polling; and notes automatic idempotency-key handling. This is comprehensive for a send action.

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 with no filler. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states purpose and response, second explains async behavior and polling requirement. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains return values and async behavior. Covers the polling loop, signature limitation, and idempotency. For a tool with only two parameters, this is fully complete.

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%, so description must compensate. It implicitly covers envelopeId (the envelope to send) and explains idempotencyKey is sent automatically. However, explicit descriptions of each parameter's role are missing, leaving some interpretation to the schema alone.

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 starts with 'Send a draft envelope', which is a clear verb+resource pair. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_envelope (creation) and void_envelope (cancellation). The scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains that the tool sends a draft envelope asynchronously and advises polling get_envelope to confirm completion. It notes that only humans can sign, indicating a limitation. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like void_envelope.

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