Set Signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one important constraint (requires connected signal database) but does not mention side effects, error handling, return value, or whether the write is synchronous. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that state the action, the addressing method, and the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and the critical constraint is front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple write tool with two well-documented parameters and an output schema (per context), the description covers the core usage. However, it lacks details on failure behavior, return values, and the exact meaning of 'connected signal database'. It is adequate but not exhaustive; an agent might still need to infer edge cases.

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% for both parameters, with descriptions for block and value. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, merely echoing the block-name addressing. Since the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly, the description adds no extra value, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 'write a value to a signal' and the addressing method (by block name). It distinguishes itself from get_signal by referencing it, and the verb 'write' makes the operation obvious. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling like set_block_param as an alternative, so it stops short of perfect differentiation.

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 gives a clear condition for use: only project signals with a connected signal database, and it mentions get_signal as a similar constraint. This implies when to use it (writing signals) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives. The guidance is present but not fully developed.

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