ops_broadcast_prepare

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses that the broadcast is 'tracked' and in 'draft' status, implying persistence and auditability. However, it fails to explain what 'tracked' entails, draft lifecycle (expiration, visibility), or side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a state-creating operation.

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 is efficiently structured with the action front-loaded ('Create a tracked broadcast draft'). Every word earns its place, though the extreme brevity is insufficient to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions across 8 parameters.

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?

Given 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return value (likely a draft ID needed for the subsequent send operation) or clarify the complex parameter relationships, which is critical for a multi-step workflow tool.

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 0%, and the description only implicitly references the 'channels' parameter ('one or more channels'). It provides no clarification for the 4 distinct content fields (text, title, summary, details), nor mrkdwn, template_id, or token_override, leaving 7 of 8 parameters semantically opaque.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('tracked broadcast draft') and implies the preparatory nature ('before sending'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool ops_broadcast_message. However, it could more explicitly contrast with the immediate-send alternative.

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 sending it to one or more channels' implies this is a staging step in a workflow, suggesting it should be used when review or preparation is needed prior to transmission. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus ops_broadcast_message, and doesn't state prerequisites or next steps.

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