send_envelope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that signing emails are dispatched with OTP-protected links and that links expire with the envelope. It does not mention state changes (e.g., envelope becomes sent and immutable) or whether resending is allowed.

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, no filler, with the main action front-loaded and a concise behavioral detail following. 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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and a key behavioral consequence. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves gaps around result handling, error behavior, and what happens if the envelope was already sent.

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 baseline applies. The description adds a little context by implying envelopeId must refer to a created envelope, but it does not otherwise enrich the parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Send a created envelope to its recipients.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_envelope, void_envelope, and get_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?

It explicitly scopes use to 'created' envelopes and states that recipients will receive signing emails, giving clear context for when to call it. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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