Send a push notification

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

The description discloses far beyond annotations: it explains default behavior (send immediately, all subscribers), the meaning of status values, mutual exclusivity of scheduling options, timezone interpretation, and the critical instruction not to infer optional fields. This rich behavioral context is not present in the annotations (which only state non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive) and is exactly what an agent needs to avoid misusing the tool.

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 long but exceptionally well-structured and front-loaded. It opens with the core purpose, then proceeds through required fields, optional-field constraints, and delivery modes in a logically ordered, scannable format. Every sentence earns its place; the density is justified by the tool's 17 parameters and complex scheduling behavior.

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 (nested objects, 17 params, scheduling modes) and the availability of a full output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all major decision points: send modes, audience targeting, optional-field restrictions, timezone handling, and the site-URL workflow. No critical operational aspect appears missing.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it calls out required fields, states that optional fields must not be added unless explicitly requested, clarifies the semantics of recurring_schedule (activate vs draft), and explains when send_in_subscribers_timezone is valid. This transforms the schema from a field list into actionable decision guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Creates and sends a push notification on the current site.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's core action and scope, and the level of detail makes it unmistakable what the tool accomplishes. It also implicitly differentiates from siblings like send_ab_notification by focusing on standard sends.

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 extensive when-to-use guidance: explicit delivery modes, when to use draft vs sent vs schedule, when to pass audience_groups, and an explicit alternative (call pushengage_list_sites for site URL). However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives like send_ab_notification or list_notifications for A/B testing or viewing existing notifications, which would earn a 5.

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