Edit user custom signal

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

Annotations cover mutation semantics (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the safety profile is already declared. The description adds useful non-annotation context: the required 'Bot trading' permission and the constraint that at least one field must be provided, both of which affect how the tool can be invoked.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the constraint and permission requirements in short, discrete lines. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, permission requirement, and the at-least-one constraint, which are the key operational facts. It stops short of describing what the updated signal looks like or whether edits are reversible, but the essential calling requirements are present.

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 coverage is 100%, with title and description documented including max lengths, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description restates the 'at least one of title/description' rule, which adds the mutual-dependency constraint not expressed in the schema, but doesn't add format or syntax details beyond that.

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 (Edit) and resource (user custom signal), and the body clarifies it updates title/description of an existing user-defined signal. This distinguishes it clearly from pionex_bot_create_user_signal, pionex_bot_get_user_signal, and pionex_bot_delete_user_signal.

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 states the requirement 'At least one of title or description must be provided' and the 'Bot trading' permission requirement, which gives some invocation context. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance versus siblings like the create or delete variants, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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