send_template_notification

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, so the agent already knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds context about the broadcast scope ('every pass holder') and platform coverage ('Apple, Google, Huawei'), but does not disclose additional behaviors like auth requirements, rate limits, or failure handling. With the annotation covering the destructive nature, the added value is moderate, warranting a 3.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second gives usage context and the alternative. The critical information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand quickly.

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 broadcast notification tool with 5 parameters, the description covers the core use case and distinguishes from the sibling. The schema documents parameter defaults (validFrom, validUntil), and the destructiveHint annotation alerts the agent to the impact. No missing information that an agent would need for correct invocation is apparent.

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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per guidelines, baseline 3 applies when the schema covers everything.

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 push notification to every pass holder of a template', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool notify_pass by naming it as the alternative for individual notifications, making the purpose 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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use for announcements that apply to all customers. For individual notifications, use notify_pass.' This states when to use the tool, when not to, and points to the specific alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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