send_test_push

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

The description prominently discloses that this sends a real push notification and that it reaches actual phones, which is the key behavioral side effect. It also advises confirming with the user first, providing important transparency beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well structured, using two sentences to communicate the action, purpose, and an important user-confirmation caveat without unnecessary detail.

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 description provides sufficient context for a test push tool: what it sends, to whom, and why. It does not describe return values or failure behavior, but there is no output schema requiring that, so the omission is acceptable.

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?

All five parameters are described in the schema, and the description adds helpful context such as referencing list_apps/create_app for appId and tying userIds to row-level security. Some details, such as body being optional while appId and userIds are required, are not explicitly clarified, but overall semantics are clear.

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: sending one real push notification to specified app users, and explains its purpose: to prove the chain works before relying on an automation. It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools because it explicitly frames itself as a test.

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 clear usage context by saying the tool should be used to 'prove the chain works before an automation depends on it' and instructs to confirm with the user first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the intended scenario is well implied.

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