Send a notification

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it is not stored, offline users do not receive it, users are matched by id or exact name, and it requires the write switch. This is valuable operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Three focused sentences deliver the essential information with no filler. The main purpose and constraints come first, followed by recipient-matching rules and edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, how recipients are resolved, the 500-character limit, the persistence behavior, and the required permission. Nothing essential is missing for an agent 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, such as the 500-character limit, exact-name/id matching for users, and the non-persistence and write-switch requirements, which enrich understanding of message and users.

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 identifies the action as showing a transient notification in Foundry, specifies the recipient scope (everyone or chosen users), and notes the sender (Gamemaster). It distinguishes itself from sibling chat tools by emphasizing 'notification', non-persistence, and the 500-character limit.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (short notifications to all or selected users, with GM as sender), and explains important eligibility constraints such as offline users not receiving it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like send-chat-message or state when not to use this tool.

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