pushonly_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool does and does not do, but lacks information on authorization needs, rate limits, failure behavior, or preconditions beyond verification. For a tool with 16 parameters, more behavioral context is needed.

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 consists of two sentences, both concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds scope and exclusions. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (16 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal and insufficient. It does not explain parameter relationships, expected outcomes, or usage patterns, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool effectively.

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%, with each of the 16 parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics or guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 runs PushOnly on a verified IgniteOnly wake packet and emits a public worker push envelope for a known worker route. It also explicitly lists what it never does (build, merge, assign, close, mark done), making the purpose highly specific and distinguishable from potential siblings.

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 (requires a verified IgniteOnly wake packet) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pushonly_policy or pushonly_wake_pusher. No exclusions or alternative names are provided, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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