ops_broadcast_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden, yet it fails to explain side effects, idempotency, failure modes, or the meaning of 'dry_run'. It doesn't clarify what happens when both text and broadcast_id are provided, or how the 13 parameters interact. 'Operational message' is jargon without context.

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 single-sentence structure is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant or filler text. However, given the high complexity (13 parameters, no annotations), the extreme brevity becomes underspecification rather than effective conciseness.

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 tool with 13 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain parameter precedence rules (e.g., broadcast_id vs. text), return values, error handling, or the relationship between the composition fields (title/summary/details/blocks).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 13 parameters, the description provides insufficient compensation. While it implicitly references 'channels' and draft-related parameters (broadcast_id/template_id), it offers no guidance on complex parameters like 'blocks', 'mrkdwn', 'unfurl_links', 'token_override', or the relationships between text/title/summary/details/blocks.

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 core action (broadcast operational message) and scope (multiple channels). It also distinguishes two operational modes (direct broadcast vs. sending prepared drafts), implicitly differentiating from sibling 'ops_broadcast_prepare'. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling relationship or clarify when to use each mode.

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 identifies two usage patterns (broadcasting directly to channels vs. sending a prepared draft), but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose one over the other, prerequisites for using drafts, or workflow integration with 'ops_broadcast_prepare'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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