Delete user custom signal

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: it names the required permission scope and specifies the failure condition and error code (SIGNAL_HAS_UNCLOSED_ORDERS with data.cnt), which an agent needs to handle errors correctly.

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 effectively sized and front-loads the core action, permission requirement, and failure condition. It slightly duplicates the title by repeating 'Delete user custom signal' as the first line, but overall it is tight and 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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: required permission, failure condition, and error response format. Combined with annotations that already signal destructive/idempotent behavior, an agent has enough context to invoke and handle the tool 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 100%; the sole parameter 'signalType' is already documented in the schema as 'Signal type identifier'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format, accepted values, or source, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('user custom signal' / 'user-defined signal'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_user_signals, create_user_signal, get_user_signal, and edit_user_signal. An agent can identify its function without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite ('Requires Bot trading permission') and an exclusion condition ('Deletion is rejected if the signal has any non-cancelled orders'), which is useful when-not guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as edit_user_signal or signal_listener, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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