send_multicast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('send') implying a write operation, but does not cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, delivery guarantees, costs, or response format. The constraint (max 500 users) is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a key constraint. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse 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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, and output expectations, which are essential for an agent to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 the schema already documents both parameters ('user_ids' and 'message') with their types and constraints. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or usage examples, meeting the baseline 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 clearly states the specific action ('send a text message'), target ('to multiple users at once'), and constraint ('max 500 user IDs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_broadcast' by specifying 'multiple users' rather than a broadcast mechanism, though the exact differentiation isn't explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_broadcast' or 'send_push_message', nor does it mention prerequisites, user eligibility, or context for sending messages. It states a constraint (max 500 users) but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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