create_push

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses important behaviors: the secret payload is NOT echoed back, a token is sent if PWPUSH_API_TOKEN is set, some instances allow anonymous push creation, and v1 instances treat 'qr' as text. These details add value beyond the structured annotation fields and help set expectations.

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 efficiently structured: purpose first, then key behavioral notes, then file vs. text/url/qr usage. Every sentence carries distinct information, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity. No 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?

Given 10 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers critical context: return URL, non-echo behavior, auth token/anonymous option, file push mechanics, and legacy v1 quirk. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining parameter interactions: file_paths forces a 'file' kind, payload is optional when file_paths are given, and 'qr' behaves differently on v1. This goes beyond individual parameter descriptions and clarifies the overall use.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Create a Password Pusher secret link and return its sharing URL.' It explicitly states the tool's primary function and distinguishes it from siblings like expire_push and list_active_pushes by focusing on creation. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool: share the returned html_url with the recipient, use file_paths for file pushes, set payload and kind for text/url/qr pushes. It also notes token/anonymous modes. Lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' alternative comparison, but the guidance is contextually strong.

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