Signal Manage Tool

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint: true, and the description amplifies this by labeling connector_binding_delete as 'DESTRUCTIVE' and explaining consequences ('future signals from that connector go unrouted'). It also notes that ingest 'runs trigger evaluation' and email_reply 'sends email via the team's outbound email connector', adding behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with bullet points for actions, making it easy to scan. It covers all major aspects without excessive verbosity. The introductory line about signals could be slightly trimmed, but overall it's efficient for the complexity.

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?

Given 24 parameters, no output schema, and multiple actions, the description covers the core behaviors but lacks return value details for list/get actions and error handling. The deadline_ms parameter is not mentioned in the description. While it provides sufficient context for most uses, some gaps remain for a tool of this complexity.

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 detailed parameter descriptions, so the tool description adds little new information about parameters. It lists which action each parameter relates to implicitly, but the schema already provides restrictions (e.g., 'search only'). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the load.

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 it manages inbound signals from connectors, lists all supported actions with specific verbs (list, get, ingest, etc.), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool `signal_connectors`. This provides a specific verb+resource scope and differentiates from alternatives.

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 directly states 'Operates on already-ingested signals; for connector setup use `signal_connectors`', giving explicit when-to-use and when-not-to guidance. Each action is described with its effect (read/write/destructive), making it clear when each action is appropriate.

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