create_envelope_from_documents

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 the return value (envelopeId and status) and status options ('sent' or 'created'), but does not mention permissions, reversibility, error behavior, or other side effects. This is minimal but useful 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?

The description is well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every line conveys necessary information—parameter formats, constraints, and return type—without redundancy or unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (nested objects, multiple parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers all inputs, output, and key constraints like the exactly-one content source rule. It doesn't mention error handling or edge cases, but for this creation tool the coverage is solid.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains each parameter: documents with exactly one content source (base64, path, or URL), recipients with signer details, email subject/blurb, and status. This adds far more meaning than the bare schema, which only lists types and required flags.

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's purpose: 'Create an envelope from documents (not using a template).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_envelope_from_template, making it easy to select correctly.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool by emphasizing 'not using a template', implying it should be chosen over template-based alternatives. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but the sibling list makes it obvious. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the content source constraints.

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