notify

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the call returns immediately without halting the workflow. It does not say whether the bubble text replaces prior status text, how long it persists, or whether it fails silently — meaningful gaps for a UI-mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 sentence, no filler, with the effect stated first and the key behavioral qualifier ('without stopping') tacked on where it is most useful. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is shown, where, and that it is non-blocking. Only the lifecycle details (persistence, overwrite behavior) are missing, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Status text'), so the schema already does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds only a weak hint that the text should be short, with no format, length, or content guidance beyond that word.

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 verb 'Show' plus the resource 'a short status line in the Buddy bubble' makes the effect concrete — the agent knows this writes transient UI text rather than performing an action. It is distinguishable from siblings like ask or confirm via 'without stopping', but it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Without stopping' implies a non-blocking status update, which lets an agent infer it should be preferred over ask/confirm when no user response is needed. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the near-neighbor update_buddy is never mentioned, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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