resolve_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states the purpose (resolving a signal) but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the signal is updated, deleted, or becomes immutable), any required permissions, or the nature of the operation (mutating). This is a significant gap for a tool that appears to modify state.

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 concise, two sentences with no filler. The core action and purpose are front-loaded, and the outcome values are included. It is efficient but could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is far from complete. It omits behavioral details, parameter explanations (except partial outcome), and any guidance on expected return values or side effects. An agent would struggle to understand the full implications of invoking this tool.

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 must explain each parameter. It defines 'actual_outcome' with values, but 'signal_id' is self-evident and 'notes' is entirely unexplained. Without any detail on what 'notes' is for or how it affects the resolution, parameter semantics are insufficiently communicated.

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 verb ('Resolve') and a specific resource ('previously tracked signal'), and specifies the outcome values (YES/NO/PARTIAL). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'track_signal' (which creates signals) and 'collect_signals' (which gathers data), making its role unambiguous.

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 implies usage context ('previously tracked signal', 'close the calibration loop') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'track_signal' or 'get_calibration_report'. It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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