batch_add_signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses partial success behavior, continued processing on individual errors, and a return summary with counts and per-signal results. It does not mention idempotency, duplicates, or batch limits, but covers the most important behavioral traits for a mutation tool.

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?

Every line earns its place: the purpose, per-item schema, return value, and error semantics are each stated in a compact sentence or fragment. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant wording.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: what parameters to provide, what each signal dict must contain, what the response summarizes, and how errors are handled. Minor gaps remain around supported signal_type values and profile_slug format, but these are not essential for a basic correct call.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by documenting the per-signal required fields signal_type and signal_value, plus optional reason. It also clarifies the shape of the signals array, which the raw schema leaves as open objects. The profile_slug parameter is not directly described, but its name and the description's 'interest profile' phrase make its meaning reasonably clear.

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 states a specific verb and resource: adding multiple signals to an interest profile in a single call. It also differentiates from the sibling add_signal by emphasizing 'multiple' and 'in one call', so an agent can distinguish batch behavior from singular behavior.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies the batch use case versus the singular sibling add_signal, giving clear context for when to choose this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name an alternative, so it stops just short of full guidance.

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