remove_recipient_signature

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the resulting state change (signature.status becomes 'revoked'), a webhook emission (recipient.signature.revoked), an outbound email side effect for waiting envelopes, and idempotency semantics ('a recipient without a stored signature is returned unchanged'). These are exactly the side effects an agent must know before calling a mutation.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information (what it does, fallback behavior, idempotency, prerequisite), with the operation described first. Slightly dense with parenthetical webhook detail, but no sentence is filler.

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 one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: state transitions, webhook and email side effects, idempotent return behavior, and the sequencing constraint against delete_recipient. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description refers to 'a recipient' but adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as whether the recipientId must come from list_recipients or belongs to a specific envelope; it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('remove the stored signature of a recipient') and explicitly covers the second mode of the operation ('cancel a pending enrolment'). It is unambiguous against siblings such as request_recipient_signature or delete_recipient because it states exactly what state changes it causes rather than just what it touches.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use rule ('Required before delete_recipient while a signature is active or an enrolment is pending') plus the consequence of not using it (envelopes fall back to an emailed signing link). It does not name a sibling alternative for the opposite intent, e.g. request_recipient_signature when you want to start an enrolment rather than cancel one, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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