release_signal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully conveys that the operation restores the 'driven value' (natural simulation value), indicating state mutation. However, it omits timing behavior, what happens if the signal wasn't deposited, or the structure of the output despite output schema existing.

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 compact with two distinct sections (description and Args). No redundant words, though the Args section is extremely terse. The structure follows standard docstring format appropriately for a single-parameter tool.

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 single-parameter tool with an existing output schema, the description covers the core concept adequately. However, given this is a state-modifying simulation operation with no annotations, it should mention prerequisites (signal must be deposited first) and ideally acknowledge the output schema's existence.

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 0% (parameter lacks description). The description compensates by specifying 'Full hierarchical signal path' under Args, clarifying the expected format. This is minimally sufficient but lacks examples, format constraints, or validation rules that would help the agent construct valid inputs.

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 (release) and effect (restoring driven value) with specific domain terminology ('deposited signal'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish when to use this versus sibling tools like deposit_value, though it implicitly references the relationship.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., signal must have been deposited first), or error conditions. The description assumes the agent knows what 'previously deposited' implies without context.

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