create_user_register_push_subscription

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral pointer: the body is complex enough that the agent must consult the GET or /schema endpoint first. It does not disclose additional runtime behavior such as whether an existing matching subscription gets replaced or what happens on duplicates.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The endpoint is front-loaded, and the schema-lookup instruction is stated compactly. Every sentence contributes.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description provides a schema-reference path for the complex body, which is helpful, but it omits context such as which user the subscription is registered for, authentication expectations, and the relationship to the webpush notification settings endpoints. It is adequate for a simple register operation but not rich.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and one generic 'body' object, the description must compensate. It does so by directing the agent to the matching GET or /schema endpoint for the expected fields, which is meaningful guidance. However, it gives no concrete parameter names, formats, or examples, so the agent still must perform a separate lookup before invoking the tool.

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 specific verb ('Register') and resource ('web push') plus the exact endpoint, so an agent can tell this creates a push subscription rather than configuring webpush notification settings (siblings create_settings_notifications_webpush). However, it does not explicitly contrast with related sibling tools like get_user_by_user_id_push_subscriptions or delete_user_by_user_id_push_subscription_by_endpoint.

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 by saying 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first to see the fields this resource expects', which tells the agent to fetch a schema before calling. It does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor mention prerequisites like authentication context or which user the subscription applies to.

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