create_request

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a write operation (fill/create) with optional side effects (e-signing), but doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, or what happens on failure. The description adds some context about the signer flow but lacks comprehensive behavioral details needed for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides crucial usage guidance about the signers parameter. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 complex mutation tool with 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and key parameter guidance but lacks information about return values, error conditions, authentication requirements, and how this tool relates to siblings like get_request or cancel_request. The absence of annotations increases the need for more comprehensive description.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying that 'signers' parameter controls the e-signing behavior, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Fill a PDF template') and resource ('PDF template'), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning the optional e-signing capability. It explicitly contrasts with fill-only usage, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated from other tools in the server.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool ('Fill a PDF template and optionally send it for e-signing') and includes a specific exclusion rule ('Omit signers for fill-only'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like get_template or list_templates, nor does it reference sibling tools for related operations.

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