broadcast_element_command

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

Discloses that changes are EPHEMERAL (not saved), a critical behavioral trait. No annotations are provided, but the description covers the key aspect. However, it could mention more about side effects or scope of broadcast (all clients) which is implied by WebSocket.

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?

Extremely concise: three sentences plus a bulleted list of actions. Front-loaded with core purpose and usage. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential context: ephemeral nature, usage scenarios, and differentiation from persistent tools. It could mention error handling or broadcast scope, but overall it is adequate for this simple broadcast 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides contextual categorization of actions (update, create, batch, delete) but does not add significant detail beyond what the schema already describes for each parameter.

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 tool pushes real-time UI updates via WebSocket and is for SHOW/DISPLAY/DEMONSTRATE requests. It lists specific actions and distinguishes from persistent update tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for SHOW/DISPLAY/DEMONSTRATE requests' and contrasts with persistent changes by naming alternatives (update_element, html_to_elements), providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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