push_server_persistent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions deprecation but does not explain what happens on invocation (e.g., whether it still works, errors, or is read-only). This is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects.

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 a single sentence and well-structured with the [DEPRECATED] prefix. However, it is so brief that it under-specifies the tool's purpose and parameters, making it barely adequate.

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 deprecated tool, the presence of an alternative is helpful, but the description does not explain the tool's functionality, parameters, or return behavior. Given the lack of output schema and annotations, this is incomplete for safe agent use.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'video' with no description, and the description does not mention it. There is zero parameter documentation, so the agent has no guidance on the meaning or usage of the boolean flag.

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 does not state what the tool does; it merely says it is deprecated and to use push_server. This gives no verb or resource, leaving the agent to infer functionality from the name and schema.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use push_server instead,' which is a direct alternative recommendation. This makes it unambiguous that this tool should be avoided and provides a clear replacement.

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