simulate_push_token_unregistered

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does reveal the key behavior: the affected token is made to look uninstalled and the next send returns provider-specific errors. It could add detail about persistence or reversibility, but the core side effect is clearly disclosed.

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 short lines with no filler. The behavioral effect is front-loaded, and the channel hint is compact and immediately useful.

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?

For a simple two-parameter simulation tool, the description gives the essential context: what will happen and which channels are supported. No output schema exists, but the lack of return-value documentation is not a significant gap for a fire-and-forget simulator.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains channel values (fcm | apns) and identifies token as a native push token, but it does not explain where the token comes from, its expected format, or how the channel interacts with the token.

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 states a clear, specific action: make a native push token look uninstalled, and it specifies the observable effect (FCM 404 UNREGISTERED, APNs 410 Unregistered). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like expire_push_subscription or create_push_subscription.

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 use case is implied: simulate an uninstalled push token to test the next send's failure behavior. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequites like needing an existing push subscription.

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