Notify Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/network profile is covered structurally. The description adds real context with 'the server owns topics and credentials' (caller need not supply or manage those), but says nothing about wake side effects, delivery guarantees, or the consequences of the non-idempotent hint.

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 no filler, and the wake action is front-loaded before the address and credential qualifications. Nothing is redundant enough to cut, though the credential notice is a slightly tangential trailing clause.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and 100% parameter coverage means the schema carries the argument detail. The description sufficiently covers action, addressing, and credential ownership for a 5-parameter mutation tool, though a note on wake delivery behavior would fully close it.

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 the schema already documents every parameter including the address-format preference and legacy localpart fallback. The description's address guidance duplicates the schema's own wording rather than adding format examples or edge-case rules, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Wake'), resource ('a named agent'), and mechanism ('server-side notification route'), so the agent knows exactly what happens. The agent-vs-user distinction from the sibling notify_user is left implicit rather than named, which keeps it 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?

The description gives format guidance (prefer full identity address, bare localpart for legacy deployments) which is useful usage context. However it never states when to choose this tool over notify_user, or any conditions/exclusions, so the routing guidance remains implied.

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