send_push_notification

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 discloses the broadcast scope ('all AR LABS subscribers') but does not mention potential side effects like irreversibility, rate limits, or impact on users. This is adequate for a simple action but could be enhanced with a warning about sending to all subscribers.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 straightforward send tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the action, audience, and method. It could be slightly enriched with a note about response handling, but this is not critical for clarity.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptive text for each parameter (url, heading, message) directly in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already offers, meriting the baseline of 3.

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), the resource (web push notification), the target audience (all AR LABS subscribers), and the method (via OneSignal). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that manage posts and comments.

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 a clear use case: sending a broadcast notification to all subscribers. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools or provide alternatives, the context is unmistakable given the distinct nature of push notification delivery compared to content management siblings.

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