Отправить документ на подпись

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes further by stating the concrete irreversible effect: 'письмо уходит получателю, и отозвать его одним вызовом нельзя'. It also adds the integration prerequisite, which is not structurally encoded elsewhere.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second adds the most important behavioral warnings. Information is front-loaded and every clause 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisite, and irreversible side effect, which is strong for a relatively simple action tool. It does not describe the return/confirmation behavior, but no output schema exists and the flat parameter set is fully documented, so this is a minor gap.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all six parameters documented. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so it relies on the schema for parameter semantics. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Отправляет документ на подписание через Подпислон'. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like documents_list or documents_generate, and the irreversibility note reinforces what the tool uniquely does.

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 gives clear context: use this to send a document for signature through Podpislon, and it requires a configured integration in the deal. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use it, but the precondition and irreversible effect provide practical guidance.

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