pushonly_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: emits a public push envelope, never builds/merges/assigns/closes/marks done. It lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or error states, but provides sufficient context for a pipeline step.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action. It uses an emoji for clarity and negation to clarify scope, with no wasted words or 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 16 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level understanding of the tool's role in a multi-step process. However, it fails to describe what the tool returns (the 'public worker push envelope') or explain which parameters are essential for typical use, leaving ambiguity about invocation.

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 all 16 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It alludes to 'verified IgniteOnly wake packet' but does not elaborate on specific parameter usage, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 tool's function: running PushOnly on a verified IgniteOnly wake packet and emitting a push envelope for a known worker route. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by negating actions it does NOT perform (build, merge, assign, close, mark done), making its purpose distinct.

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?

The description implies usage context (only on verified IgniteOnly wake packets, only for known worker routes) and excludes alternative actions via negation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or specify when to choose this over pushonly_wake_pusher or pushonly_policy.

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