Generate Web Push keys

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the operation may return existing keys or generate new ones, and it explicitly states the private key never leaves the machine. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing keys) or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, states the output, and includes the security constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description is incomplete for a one-parameter tool. It lacks explanation of the 'app' parameter, any prerequisites (e.g., does the app need to exist?), and does not describe the return format beyond the public key. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context but does not.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the 'app' parameter at all. An agent calling this tool would not know what value to supply for 'app' (e.g., an app identifier, name, or path). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 specific verb (generate or return) and resource (VAPID keys for Web Push), and it distinguishes itself from the sibling push_send by focusing on key generation rather than sending notifications. It also clarifies the output (public key) and a key constraint (private key stays local).

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 the use case: when you need VAPID keys for Web Push. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. Since push_send is clearly about sending, the context is clear, but no exclusions or alternative routing are stated.

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