Send push notification

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (sending a push notification) and the required subscription format, but it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., prior key generation), error conditions, or success/failure semantics. It is truthful but minimal, leaving out operational details an agent might need for robust use.

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 sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the primary action. The parenthetical clarifies the expected subscription format without added fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though a brief structuring into separate clauses could improve readability.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides the essential context for identifying the tool and the subscription parameter format. However, it leaves 'app', 'title', and 'body' undefined, and does not mention return values or error behavior. For a 4-parameter tool with low schema coverage, this is incomplete but not critically misleading.

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 only 25% (only the 'subscription' parameter has a description). The tool description only elaborates on the 'subscription' parameter (the JSON from PushSubscription.toJSON()), which aligns with the schema. It provides no explanation for 'app', 'title', or 'body', despite the low schema coverage. Since the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters, it adds little value beyond parameter names.

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 verb and resource: 'Send a Web Push notification to a browser subscription'. It also specifies the exact input format (JSON from PushSubscription.toJSON()), which uniquely identifies this tool among siblings like push_generate_keys (key generation) and send_email (email). No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 when to use it (when the frontend provides subscription JSON to the backend) but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides context about the subscription source but does not explicitly contrast with send_email or push_generate_keys. The usage context is inferable but not explicitly stated, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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