Send Notification

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, which the description aligns with by implying a write action ('Send'). However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations—it doesn't clarify rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'openWorldHint' means in practice (e.g., side effects on wallets).

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key parameters (wallets, message template). It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, non-destructive mutation), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations, relying heavily on annotations and schema for completeness.

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 fully documents all parameters (to, template_id, subject, body, data). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how template overrides work or data variable usage, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 action ('Send a notification message') and target ('to one or more wallets using a message template'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dual_send_support_message' or 'dual_create_message_template', which handle similar messaging functions but for different contexts or purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a template ID from 'dual_create_message_template'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'dual_send_support_message' for support contexts, leaving usage context unclear.

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