send_push_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool sends a message but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, delivery confirmation, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted text, and every word contributes directly to clarifying the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters via the schema, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format, errors, or side effects, which are important for effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the LINE user ID format or message constraints in more detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('send a direct text message'), specifies the resource ('to a specific user'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'send_broadcast' and 'send_multicast' by emphasizing 'direct' and 'specific user'. It provides a complete, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 description implies usage for direct messaging to individual users, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_broadcast' or 'send_multicast'. It lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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