Send a Zona notification

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the payload is delivered externally to the owner's app and adds a practical security warning ('Do not put secrets in title, body, or data'), which meaningfully flags a transmission/exposure risk. However, it says nothing about failure behavior, delivery guarantees, the effect of the idempotency key, or what happens on invalid attachment paths.

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 sentences, all earning their place: the core action is front-loaded, the parameter constraints condense the schema into a readable line, and the secrets warning is a tight closing note. No redundancy with the input schema beyond the readable restatement of limits that serves comprehension.

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 payload spec is fully covered for six parameters with two required, but the context is under-specified elsewhere: there is no output schema and no statement about the return value, error conditions, or whether the call is asynchronous. The description never explains what the idempotency key actually guarantees — a real gap for an agent deciding whether to retry a failed send.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does most of the job: it states the title/body character limits, enumerates the severity enum values, and adds non-schema information that attachment paths must be PNG/JPEG/WebP images and at most five. It falls slightly short by only naming 'category' and 'idempotency key' without explaining their purpose or behavior.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair — 'Send an inbox notification to the owner's Zona app' — making the action, recipient, and delivery channel unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools zona_status and zona_ping, which are inherently read/check operations rather than mutations.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description tells the agent what the tool does, so the appropriate scenario (deliver a notification to the owner) can be inferred, but it never says explicitly when to choose this over siblings or what conditions would disqualify it. There is no when-not clause or explicit routing to zona_status/zona_ping.

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