publish_signal

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose CAS semantics and versioning, which are genuine behavioral traits beyond the name. However, it omits side effects, conflict/failure behavior, identity requirements (binding_token), and whether the signal is persisted or broadcast.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loads the action. It is concise and free of filler. It loses a point because it is so terse that it does not structure any usage or parameter context, but as a conciseness measure it is strong.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema coverage, a one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It provides no return format, error semantics, parameter explanations, or guidance on when CAS applies. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly from the given definition.

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?

With only 11% schema description coverage and 9 parameters, the description needed to compensate but only hints at 'typed, versioned' (likely expected_version/value). It does not explain campaign_id, name, value, audience, visibility, ttl_seconds, evidence_refs, or binding_token, leaving the agent without semantic grounding for most parameters.

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 names a concrete verb and resource: 'Create or compare-and-swap a typed, versioned coordination signal.' This clearly separates it from siblings like wait_for_signal (publish vs. wait) and indicates a write operation. It loses a point because 'compare-and-swap' is left unexplained and no concrete use case is given.

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?

There is no statement about when to use publish_signal versus wait_for_signal, create_barrier, or other coordination tools. The description implies a publish operation but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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