void_envelope

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 key behavioral traits: notification to unsigned recipients, invalidation of signing links, non-effect on fully signed documents, visibility of the reason to recipients, and irreversibility. It does not mention auth requirements or side effects on other systems, but covers the core mutation semantics well.

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 concise sentences deliver high-value information with no filler. The action and status constraint are front-loaded, followed by recipient impact, the reason visibility, and irreversibility. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter, irreversible action tool, the description covers the operation's scope, side effects, and parameter semantics sufficiently. Since no output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. The status restriction answers what conditions are valid, and irreversibility warns against misuse.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'reason' is visible to recipients and included in the cancellation email, which goes beyond the schema's bare description. It also makes clear that envelopeId is the target of the void action.

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 states a specific action (void/cancel), a specific resource (envelope), and the applicable statuses ('created' or 'in_progress'). It also distinguishes behavior from other envelope operations by noting the effect on unsigned recipients and that fully signed documents are unaffected.

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 clearly says the tool applies to envelopes in 'created' or 'in_progress' status and what happens to recipients, which guides when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or situations where another tool would be preferred, but the status limitation and irreversible nature give clear contextual guidance.

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