configure_mobile_credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real context: it requires PUSHNOTIF_API_KEY, costs 0 credits, and stores credentials encrypted. It also spells out the return shape, which matters since no output schema exists. Only minor gap is what happens on partial credential updates (one platform only).

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 the core action, then usage, prerequisite, auth/cost, and return value in a single dense paragraph with no filler. The em-dash credential enumeration makes one sentence heavy, but every clause carries information.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, platform scoping, prerequisite, auth key, cost, idempotency, and the exact JSON return shape. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping the credential families to platforms — FCM service-account.json for Android, .p8 AuthKey/Key ID/Team ID/Bundle ID for iOS — clarifying which fields group together. It does not add format detail beyond the schema's own examples.

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 (store) and resource (native mobile push credentials for FCM/APNs) and explicitly scopes it to Android/iOS native push. It names the boundary against Web Push handled by create_app, so an agent can separate it from create_app and send_push_notification without opening either 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 an explicit when ('enabling native Android or iOS push delivery') and an explicit when-not ('do not use it for standard browser Web Push... from create_app'), plus the prerequisite to call list_apps first. Alternatives and selection conditions are fully spelled out.

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