create_embed_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does so exceptionally well. It reveals critical behavior: the link is short-lived, requires in_progress status, should be created when the signer is ready, and triggers a redirect with specific query parameters while preserving existing returnUrl parameters.

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 compact yet dense, with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers prerequisites/timing, and finally the post-session redirect behavior. Each clause earns its place and contributes to a complete mental model.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context an agent needs: what the tool does, when to call it, what preconditions exist, and what happens after the signing session ends. No critical invocation detail appears to be missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, especially for returnUrl (redirect behavior, appended parameters, preservation of existing query parameters) and for the overall signing-session semantics that connect the four parameters together.

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?

States a specific action (create), a specific resource (short-lived signing URL), and the intended use (embedded recipient in an iframe). The description clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like create_recipient or create_webhook by focusing on signing-session embedding.

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?

Provides explicit conditions for use: the envelope must be in_progress, the link expires after 10 minutes, and only one link should be created per signing session. It does not name alternative tools, but no direct alternative exists among the siblings, so the practical usage context is strong.

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