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

The description is consistent with annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) but adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'delete'. It doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent, whether scheduled broadcasts are canceled, or any side effects. With annotations present, the description should add extra context but fails to do so.

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 a single short sentence with no filler words, front-loading the core operation. It is concise and well-structured, though it is also under-specified—a completeness concern rather than a conciseness one.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and only one parameter, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain the consequences of deletion, whether it affects scheduled broadcasts, or how it relates to sibling tools like cancel_broadcast_schedule. The annotations cover the destructive nature, but the description fails to provide a complete operational picture.

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 provides 100% coverage for broadcast_id with the description 'The broadcast id', so the parameter is already documented. The tool description adds no further semantic meaning about the parameter, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Delete a broadcast.' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (broadcast), making the primary action obvious. However, it doesn't differentiate from related broadcast actions like cancel_broadcast_schedule or note whether this is a permanent hard delete, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus cancel_broadcast_schedule, archive tools, or other delete_* tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate usage context.

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