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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context beyond this by stating 'Effect: workspace-change' and specifying required permissions (live_actions:write, broadcasts:write). It also cautions to retry after reading current state, which is useful for concurrency. No contradiction with 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 compact, with the primary purpose in the first sentence. Additional facts (effect, retry, permissions, API link) are each presented in short, standalone segments. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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 one-parameter tool with output schema and annotations, the description covers the action, preconditions, error handling, and permissions. The API reference provides further depth. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema only describes broadcast_id as 'The broadcast identifier.' The description implies the identifier must refer to a scheduled broadcast (not draft or sent), adding meaningful semantic context. Since schema coverage is 100%, this extra hint raises the score above the baseline of 3.

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 specific action: 'Returns a scheduled Broadcast to draft state before delivery starts.' This distinguishes it from siblings like broadcasts_cancel, which likely cancels delivery entirely rather than reverting to draft.

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 phrase 'before delivery starts' provides a clear temporal condition for when to use the tool. 'Retry after reading the current resource state' offers operational guidance for handling failures, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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