send_push_notification

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

Annotations already convey that this is a mutating, non-idempotent action. The description adds useful recipient context ('registered mobile devices') but does not disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or what happens if no devices are registered. With the annotation profile already covering the core behavioral traits, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, target, and recipient type efficiently, earning its place without 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?

The tool is relatively simple, with only three parameters and no output schema. However, the description lacks usage differentiation from send_notification and does not clarify the optional data parameter. It is minimally adequate for basic invocation but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent deciding between notification tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does not mention title, body, or data at all. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the 'data' field's format and purpose are ambiguous, and the description provides no clarification.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and a clear resource ('push notification to the user's registered mobile devices'). It distinguishes this tool from the sibling send_notification by explicitly targeting mobile push rather than generic or desktop notifications. An agent can immediately understand what operation this performs.

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 the use case: send a push notification to a user's mobile devices. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to choose this over the sibling send_notification, nor any exclusions or alternative conditions. The usage context is only implied by the purpose, not articulated.

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