create_embed_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the link expiry, envelope status prerequisite, signing-order restriction, and detailed redirect behavior including which query parameters are appended and that existing returnUrl parameters are preserved. This goes well beyond minimal expectations.

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 dense but well-structured. It opens with the core purpose, then layers in constraints and behavior. Every sentence carries necessary information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema property names.

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?

The description is highly complete for a four-parameter tool, covering preconditions, timing, expiry, and session-end behavior. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the direct response shape (e.g., that the signing URL is returned directly), and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining what happens to returnUrl (event, envelopeId, documentId, recipientId appended, existing query params preserved) and by contextualizing recipientId/envelopeId with the signing-order turn logic.

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 explicitly says 'Create a short-lived signing URL for an embedded recipient, to be rendered in an iframe inside your application.' This is a specific verb, resource, and usage context. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_webhook and create_recipient.

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 gives explicit usage conditions: the envelope must be in 'in_progress', the link expires after 10 minutes, create it when the signer is ready, one per signing session, and for signingOrder documents only when it is the recipient's turn, signaled by the envelope.recipient.activated webhook event. This is precise when-to-use guidance.

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