send_push

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'Destructive' and explains the confirm‑gated behavior (preview vs send). This goes beyond the simple action, adding crucial safety context that is not present in the schema (except in confirm's description, but the word 'Destructive' is new context).

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 two short sentences: the first states the action, the second gives the critical destructive/confirm nuance. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details. It front-loads the purpose and then the essential behavioral caveat.

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 tool's complexity (7 params, 3 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description conveys the essential behavioral difference between preview and send, which is the only unusual aspect. It does not explicitly state return values after sending, but this is not necessarily required given schema richness and lack of output schema. It is reasonably complete for its purpose.

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 already provides complete coverage (100%) for all 7 parameters, including descriptions that specify behavior (e.g., confirm's effect). The description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already defines—it mainly restates the confirm logic. Baseline of 3 applies as schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose clearly: 'Sends a push to the app's devices.' It uses a specific verb and resource and is distinct from any sibling tool (none of which relate to push notifications). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but none of the listed siblings perform push actions, so this suffices.

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 use: it is for sending pushes, with an important conditional—confirm:true triggers sending, otherwise it previews. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use or alternate tools. It offers a logical safety gate (confirm) that guides correct invocation.

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