iam_desktop_notify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses rate limits (20/hour), character limit (4000), deduplication via notice_id, file size/format constraints, privacy warnings, and clarifying that it grants no authority and does not wake agents. This is comprehensive behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then systematically covering constraints and cautions. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 complexity of file attachments and rate limits, the description provides most critical context. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, the unexplained mailbox parameter and slight ambiguity around 'body' leave minor gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It covers notice_id (deduplication), image_paths and file_paths (formats, size limits), but the 'body' and 'mailbox' parameters are not explicitly described—'Include a caption' is ambiguous and could refer to body, while mailbox is entirely unexplained. Partial compensation for the coverage 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 uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('Messenger message') with clear scope ('unsolicited', 'from YOUR mailbox', 'No prior request needed'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like iam_desktop_reply, which implies a response to a prior message.

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 clarifies that no prior request is needed, indicating this is for proactive outreach. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use this tool versus iam_desktop_reply or other notification methods, leaving some inference to the agent.

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