tickerbot_update_custom_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses recompilation against the live column whitelist when expr is supplied, the 409 conflict behavior for renaming, read-only status of built-in signals, and ownership restrictions. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral information that goes far beyond a basic 'update signal' statement.

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 three sentences, all dense with relevant information. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds critical constraints in a structured order. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 an update tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: valid targets, ownership, conflict conditions, and plan availability. It doesn't describe the success response or any pagination/return format, but those are less critical for a patch operation. The combination of schema and description leaves few unanswered questions for the agent.

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% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that expr, description, and new_name can be supplied 'in any combination,' clarifying optionality beyond the single required 'name' parameter. It also explains the recompilation consequence of providing expr, which is not in the schema.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Edit one of the caller's custom signals.' It further specifies the editable fields (expr, description, new_name) and distinguishes from create/delete operations. Sibling tools include create_custom_signal and delete_custom_signal, making this unambiguously the update operation.

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 provides essential usage context: only custom signals owned by the caller can be patched, and built-in signals are read-only. It also flags a specific conflict scenario (renaming refused with 409 if referenced by other signals). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'use create_custom_signal for new signals,' the positioning among siblings and the ownership constraints give clear guidance.

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