mobilepush_add_deep_linking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one useful trait (Pro gating) but omits whether the tool writes/modifies project files, whether the api_key is required for the Pro check, and what happens if deep linking is already configured. For a generation tool that takes a project directory, this is a significant gap.

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 compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no filler words. It is efficient, though the sparseness borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

Despite the low structural complexity, this is a project-writing generation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover more. It leaves out the nature of the generated artifact, the role of api_key, prerequisites relative to sibling tools, and side effects on the project directory.

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 50% (directory is documented, api_key is not). The tool description adds nothing about either parameter and fails to connect api_key to the 'Pro feature' gating. The undocumented api_key remains completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and names a specific resource ('push notification deep linking'), which distinguishes it from the close siblings mobilepush_setup_fcm and mobilepush_add_handling. It doesn't earn a 5 because it never states what the generated artifact actually is (code, config, URL scheme handler), so the concrete output remains ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mobilepush_setup_fcm or mobilepush_add_handling, no prerequisites (e.g., is FCM setup required first?), and no exclusions. The '(Pro feature)' parenthetical is a licensing note, not usage direction.

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