Manage custom push content

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is set. The description adds real value with the 'delete requires confirm:true' rule, but stays silent on what gets destroyed, whether deletion is reversible, or how data/params are consumed.

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 resource and a compact enumerated action list plus the confirm rule. Efficient and largely waste-free, though the enumeration style is list-like rather than explanatory.

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 five-parameter, nested-object, multi-action tool with no output schema and only 40% param coverage, the description does not explain data/params payload structure or return behavior. An agent could select the right action but would likely fumble the payload shapes.

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 only 40% and the description compensates minimally: it clarifies the confirm flag and echoes the action enum, but leaves the meaning of app, data (nested body), and params (query fields) essentially unexplained beyond the terse schema hints. For a nested-object tool this leaves significant gaps.

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 names the resource (custom push content) and enumerates all six operations with their meanings (list/get/add/update/delete/set_default). It is clearly a custom-push management tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like yunxin_app_third_push or yunxin_app_callback.

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?

The action-to-operation mapping provides implied usage for each mode, and it adds a concrete prerequisite ('删除必须 confirm: true'). However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool versus the other push/callback siblings, nor any exclusions.

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