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

Annotations already declare this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and destructive, but the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the annotation set. It does not explain what PAUSE, RESUME, STEER, ABORT, or REASSIGN actually do, whether any signal is irreversible, or what happens to a target after a signal is sent.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It names the action, the signal options, and the target scope immediately.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. It gives the core purpose but omits behavioral effects, parameter meanings, and usage constraints needed to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 0%, so the description should carry the burden of explaining the six parameters. It only mentions signal values and target types, both of which are already present as enums in the schema, and says nothing about issued_by, reason, task_id, reassign_to, or target.id.

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?

States a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('steering signal'), and scopes the target types as agent, team, or channel. This is clearer than a generic message tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as send_message, send_order, or escalate.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies that the tool is for steering signals, but it never names alternatives or explains what distinguishes this action from send_order, send_message, or escalate.

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