push_to_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states the push is explicit, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, potential device-side effects, or return/error behavior. This is similar to the update_drive case where the side-effectful nature is clear but other behavioral traits are unstated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and then the key constraint. Every word contributes either to what the tool does or how to invoke it. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the key parameter source. However, it leaves page_id semantics implicit and does not mention successful/failed outcomes or side effects, so it is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to device_ids by specifying the source (list_devices) and that it is required, but page_id is not explained beyond the schema's 'Page Id' title. Partial compensation only.

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 phrase 'Render the canvas and push it to the given devices' and clearly identifies the resource (canvas) and target (devices). It also references the source of device IDs ('ids from list_devices'), distinguishing this push action from preview/report siblings.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: device_ids come from list_devices and are required, with 'pushing is always explicit' reinforcing when invocation is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient for selecting this tool correctly.

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