ouroboros_session_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses that shipped adapters only advertise/apply inform and after_turn, that redirect and replace are reserved, that redirect has one explicit fallback path, that unsupported requests fail closed, and that 'A queued result does not mean the signal was applied.' This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it is relatively long and consists of a single block of text. Every sentence contributes valuable constraint information, so length is justified, but it would benefit from clearer structural separation (e.g., bullets).

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 complex 13-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the tricky mode logic, fallback, failure behavior, and a prerequisite query. It does not explain the response shape (though it warns about queued results), which is a minor gap given no output schema, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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% with detailed per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces mode/fallback semantics but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it is contextual rather than parameter-specific.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Send one audited Ouroboros Synapse intent signal to an exact active AC session attempt.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ouroboros_session_signal_targets, which is referenced for querying capabilities, and from other session/execution tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it directs the agent to 'Query ouroboros_session_signal_targets for the selected exact attempt's live capabilities before sending,' details the sole fallback path for redirect (fallback_mode=after_turn and attempt advertising after_turn), and states that 'All other unsupported requests fail closed.' This goes beyond vague context and names a specific alternative tool.

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