batch_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. It mentions the default limit but does not describe whether the operation is synchronous, what happens if the query matches no workflows, whether it returns any result, or any authorization requirements. The mutation nature is implied but not explicitly stated, leaving significant gaps.

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 very concise: one sentence plus a note on the limit. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, it could include a bit more detail without becoming lengthy, such as noting the optional nature of 'args' or the query format.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (one nested object) and no output schema. The description does not explain the return value, error conditions, batch behavior (e.g., atomicity), or what happens partially. For a batch mutation tool, more context is needed to ensure correct invocation, making it incomplete.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value for 'limit' (specifying default) but does not clarify the 'args' parameter (a nested object) or the 'query' syntax. While the schema descriptions are present, the description doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in 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 clearly states the action ('send a signal') and the target ('multiple workflows matching a query'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like signal_workflow (single target) and batch_cancel/terminate (different operations). The verb+resource combination is specific and 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 for signaling multiple workflows selected by query but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., signal_workflow for single workflow, or batch_terminate for termination). No 'when not to use' or prerequisite conditions are mentioned, making it adequate but not proactive.

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