Desktop notification

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, and the description adds nothing behavioral: it doesn't say whether the notification blocks, whether it requires user interaction, whether it is fire-and-forget, or how failures surface. For a user-facing side-effecting tool, the description should carry more.

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?

One short sentence with an inline example; front-loaded and free of waste. It is appropriately sized, though brevity comes partly at the cost of omitting parameter clarification.

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?

A simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond destructiveHint=false, and the description leaves both parameters along with all behavioral traits unexplained. It is not adequate for reliable invocation despite the low complexity.

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 0% for two parameters, and the description does not compensate: it never explains that 'title' is the notification heading (with a default of 'publish-pilot') or that 'message' is the body text. The example only illustrates message content.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Show a desktop notification', which is unambiguous and distinct from all siblings (no other notification tool exists in the set). It does not need to differentiate against a near-duplicate, so a 4 is right rather than a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given; the example content ('Ready for your approval') hints at approval workflows but never states when an agent should call this or any prerequisite/alternative. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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