memory_signal_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return shape {success,signal}, that message and audit state are written, the auto-threading rule for replyTo (reuse parent thread when found, else create new), the absence of a TTL parameter, and the authorization requirement. It stops short of describing failure modes or how authorization is verified.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the broadcast condition, with no filler. The return shape and threading detail are compactly packed, though the TTL remark is a slight tangent.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description supplies the return contract, the audit-write side effect, threading semantics, and the authorization precondition. Only failure/permission-denied behavior is left unstated.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the 'omit to for broadcast' rule, the nonempty from/content validation constraint, and the replyTo threading behavior (reuses parent thread when found, otherwise creates a new one) which the schema's 'auto-threads' hint does not fully explain.

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+resource ('Store a typed message for another AgentMemory agent, or broadcast by omitting to') and immediately distinguishes the broadcast case. An agent can tell this apart from the sibling memory_signal_read without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use memory_signal_read to retrieve messages', and states the precondition that sending requires authorization for the recipient and content. It gives clear context and a named alternative but does not enumerate when-not-to-send scenarios.

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