send_envelope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides strong detail: OTP-protected links, expiration, no email for embedded recipients, and signingOrder activation behavior. It does not disclose idempotency/error behavior or auth requirements, which is a minor gap for a send action with no annotation safety hints.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the two most decision-relevant behavioral nuances. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes unique operational information.

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 single-parameter send action with no output schema, the description covers the invocation prerequisite, recipient handling, and signing-order behavior. The only additional material an agent might want is response/status detail, but that is unnecessary for correctly selecting and invoking this tool.

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% and the only parameter, envelopeId, already has a clear description in the schema. The description adds no new semantic detail about the parameter beyond referring to the envelope itself, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 opening sentence, 'Send a created envelope to its recipients,' states a specific verb and resource and clearly separates this from envelope-creation, deletion, and helper tools. It further differentiates itself from create_embed_link by explaining that embedded recipients need a different flow.

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 explicit routing guidance: embedded recipients receive no email, and their links must be created with create_embed_link after sending. It also communicates the prerequisite state ('created envelope') and the signingOrder condition for staged emailing, so an agent knows exactly when and how to use the tool.

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