Show a toast in the game

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

Annotations already declare this is non-read-only but non-destructive and closed-world; the description adds real preconditions (client version, notifications setting, connected state) that the annotations cannot express. It stops short of saying what happens when those preconditions fail or whether the toast queues or is dropped, so it is useful but not rich.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the constraints; nothing is redundant. The imperative 'Keep it short' is slightly ambiguous about whether it targets the agent's input or the visual output.

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 4-parameter side-effecting tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints and environment prerequisites. It omits failure/queueing behavior when prerequisites are unmet, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so kind, text, title and client are already fully documented, including the enum and the 300/80 character caps. The description only reinforces brevity with 'Keep it short', adding marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Show a small notification (toast) in the corner of the Roblox window') plus a concrete example use, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like gui_interact or screenshot.

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?

Gives a clear usage context ('tell the user that a long task is done while they are playing') and hard prerequisites (Superbase client 1.4.0, notifications enabled, connected state). It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, which keeps it below a 5.

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