Post an Android notification

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: the external app dependency and the notification-permission requirement, plus the update-by-id behavior that explains the idempotent hint. It stops short of 5 only because failure modes (missing app/permission) are not described.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and the id/update tip. No filler, and every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

All 8 optional parameters are schema-documented, the external dependency is disclosed, and no output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The only gap is that with zero required parameters it never says whether an empty call is valid or what a permission-denied call does, which is minor.

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 100%, so every one of the 8 parameters is already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's note about reusing a stable id restates what the id parameter's own description ('Notification id used for updates') already says, adding no new semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create an Android notification') plus the mechanism ('via Termux:API'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the closest sibling, 'toast', which is another Android-side message-display tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use a stable id to update an existing notification' is a concrete usage rule, and the Termux:API app + permission prerequisite is stated. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over toast/vibrate, or when not to use it, so usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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