create_envelope

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses a key non-obvious behavior: creating the envelope does not send it; it returns an envelope in 'created' status, and sending is a separate step (send_envelope). This is meaningful beyond the tool name. It does not discuss failure modes or side effects, but the main lifecycle behavior is covered.

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 contain all essential information: what the tool does, what it returns, and what to do next. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the most important scoping constraint 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 creation tool with nested parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key context: input source documents must already exist, the result is 'created' not sent, and the follow-up tool is send_envelope. A small gap is that it never mentions how to identify the returned envelope when calling send_envelope, but the workflow is otherwise clear.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters and their nested structure. The description adds only context that 'existing PDFGate documents' are required, which mirrors the schema's sourceDocumentId description. Baseline 3 is appropriate — no additional parameter nuance is provided.

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 action ('Create a signing envelope'), a specific resource ('from one or more existing PDFGate documents'), and the resulting state ('envelope in created status'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like send_envelope, get_envelope, and void_envelope.

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 tells the agent when to use the tool: when a signing envelope should be built from already-existing PDFGate documents. It also states the follow-up action — call send_envelope to dispatch signing emails — which provides clear workflow guidance. It stops short of explicitly saying 'use upload_file first' or listing when not to use it, so it is slightly below a perfect score.

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