configure_inapp_banner

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

Annotations already cover non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world, but the description adds the things annotations cannot: the PUSHNOTIF_API_KEY requirement, that saving is free while each live impression costs 1 credit, and the exact JSON shape returned. That is exactly the value-add behavior layer.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the sibling exclusion, and every sentence carries information (prerequisite, auth, cost model, return shape). It is dense and somewhat run-on — the trigger/frequency parenthetical could be split — so not a 5.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, auth, cost model, idempotency and prerequisite. Gaps are minor: nothing about error behavior (e.g. invalid app_id) or what happens to an already-published banner when inapp_enabled is omitted.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the schema already documents all ten parameters including the trigger and frequency enums, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a little meaning by explaining that inapp_trigger and inapp_freq work together to cap impressions, but most of its parameter prose restates values already 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?

States a specific verb (configure/publish) and resource (In-App Popup or Banner) plus the concrete render styles, and explicitly contrasts it with the OS-notification sibling send_push_notification. An agent can distinguish it from every other tool in the sibling list without opening the 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?

Gives both directions: 'use this tool for visual in-page promos and announcements' and 'do not use it for OS lock-screen notifications (use send_push_notification instead)'. It also names a prerequisite (call list_apps first for app_id), which is a routing instruction, not just context.

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