notify_pass

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

The description does not contradict the annotations (destructiveHint: true). However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation itself—no mention of side effects, replacement behavior, or irreversibility. Since annotations provide the destructive hint and the description is otherwise silent, the bar is low and this is adequate, but there is room to disclose more (e.g., whether a notification replaces an existing one).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediate usage guidance. No filler, every word earns its place.

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 notification tool with fully documented parameters, a clear usage distinction, and a relevant annotation, the description is complete. Output schema is not needed for a fire-and-forget notification, and optional params are covered by the schema. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds use-case context (e.g., balance update, reward earned) but no extra meaning for individual parameters. Baseline 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Send a push notification'), resource ('a single pass holder via Google Wallet'), and scope ('targeted messages to individual customers'), clearly distinguishing it from the bulk alternative. It names the exact sibling tool, send_template_notification, making the intended use unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('targeted messages to individual customers') and when to use the alternative ('For bulk notifications to all pass holders, use send_template_notification instead'). This provides clear decision guidance without ambiguity.

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