Push Flex Message

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description should add behavioral context beyond mutation. It mentions high customizability and layout types, but omits important details like rate limits, recipient requirements, or validation errors.

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 concise sentences with no superfluous information. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and key distinguishing feature (layout types).

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (large nested schema), the description is very brief. It omits critical information like required altText, recipient constraints, error handling, and references to official documentation.

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 50%. The description adds value by explaining the two layout types (bubble and carousel), which helps understand the nested message.contents structure. The userId parameter is already well-documented in the schema. Baseline 3 with partial compensation.

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 clearly states the verb 'push' and resource 'flex message', and specifies two layout types (bubble and carousel). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like push_text_message or broadcast_flex_message, but the distinction is implicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., push_text_message for simple text, broadcast_flex_message for broadcasting). No prerequisites or context provided.

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