Agent Memory Bridge

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Explains the observable effect on polling behavior but omits mutation details (e.g., idempotency, whether signal is deleted/archived, failure modes if already acknowledged, auth requirements).

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?

Single 15-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and efficiently explains the purpose and consequence without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Adequate for a 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and existing output schema (handling return documentation). However, given zero annotations, the description should ideally disclose mutation characteristics or side effects beyond the polling impact mentioned.

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 has 100% description coverage (id and consumer fully documented). Main description mentions 'one... signal' implying the id parameter but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

Description provides specific verb ('Acknowledge'), resource ('signal'), and outcome ('downstream polling can stop treating it as active work'), clearly distinguishing this completion action from sibling tools like claim_signal or extend_signal_lease.

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?

Implies timing through 'stop treating it as active work' (i.e., when work is finished), but lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance. Does not mention sibling claim_signal or extend_signal_lease to clarify the workflow sequence.

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