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

Beyond the mutation/openWorld annotations, the description discloses real behavioral constraints: media cannot be combined with actions, actions cap at 4, blocked/unsafe schemes are rejected, custom schemes have no web fallback, webhook actions require HTTPS, and iOS version gates apply to some features. It also explains that the response returns notification_id, which is the key behavioral fact for follow-up calls.

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?

Well structured and front-loaded: purpose, then targeting, then redirection/actions, then media constraint, then follow-up lifecycle, then rendering and urgency. It is long for a 14-parameter tool and some content duplicates schema descriptions (media/actions incompatibility, redirection scheme examples), but the prose is paragraph-scoped by topic and skimmable rather than rambling.

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 high-parameter, open-world mutation tool with nested objects, the description covers the gaps that matter: action payload shape, scheme policy, exclusivity constraints, urgency semantics, and what to do with the returned notification_id. Since an output schema exists, it correctly avoids restating the full response shape.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns an increment by explaining interaction rules the schema states only per-field (media vs. actions exclusivity), the intent behind interruption_level values, and concrete worked examples of action objects with open_url and webhook shapes. The icon explanation ('next to a smaller ActivitySmith app icon; iOS may hide the subtitle') adds rendering context not present 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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Send an ActivitySmith Push Notification to this account') and immediately adds the scoping option ('optionally target channel slugs'). Later it names the sibling tools this one feeds into (replace_push_notification, dismiss_push_notification), so an agent can place it in the notification lifecycle without opening other schemas.

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?

Clear routing guidance: capture notification_id and pass it to replace_push_notification when an incident resolves, or dismiss_push_notification to clear it. It also gives a decision rule for interruption_level ('use time-sensitive only for things the user must see now') and for target_channel_slugs (omit for account-wide default). It stops short of stating when this tool is the wrong choice versus unrelated siblings like set_live_activity_stream or request_approval.

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