tag_signal

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states it's a manual attachment operation without detailing side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens on conflict. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 concise with two sentences: the first declares the core action, and the second adds valuable usage context. No redundant information or unnecessary words.

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 the tool has two parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description provides decent context for purpose and usage but lacks parameter details and behavioral transparency. The presence of an output schema (not shown) slightly offsets the need for return value description, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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% and the description does not explain the parameters (signal_id, task_id) or how to obtain their values. While names are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 (manually attach a signal to a task) and distinguishes from auto-tagging. It provides specific context (retroactively building a task-thread) and contrasts with the automatic process, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use this tool (retroactively building a task-thread) and contrasts with auto-tagging at signal-emit time. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools or when not to use it, leaving some gaps.

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