mobilepush_add_handling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Add push notification handling.' It does not state what files are modified, what the api_key is used for, whether it generates code, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies a project.

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 only three words, which is excessively terse. While there is no waste, the brevity sacrifices clarity and usefulness; it is under-specification rather than effective 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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is wholly incomplete. An agent cannot infer what 'handling' entails, why an api_key is needed, or what the expected outcome is. This is far below the minimum viable definition.

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 50% (only 'directory' is described), and the description adds nothing about parameters. 'api_key' is completely unexplained, and the description does not clarify how 'directory' is used for adding handling. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a verb ('Add') and a resource ('push notification handling'), but 'handling' is vague and could refer to many things (permissions, background/foreground events, deep links, etc.). It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like mobilepush_setup_fcm or push_setup_fcm, which also deal with push notifications.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having FCM setup) or any context indicating when 'handling' is the right choice rather than setup-related tools.

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