evite_broadcast

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the safety burden. It explicitly warns 'This really emails every guest in those segments' and explains the dry-run vs. actual send behavior with confirm:true. This is strong disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences; first sentence states the action, second warns of real-world effect, third explains the confirm mechanism. No redundant words.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explains the dry-run preview and the actual send behavior. It doesn't describe the preview's contents or explicitly differentiate from similar messaging siblings, but it covers the core operational requirements.

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?

All 5 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides for groups and confirm; it emphasizes the same confirm gating already in the schema.

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 ('Broadcast') plus resource ('message to whole RSVP segments of an Evite event') and scope ('whole segments'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like evite_send_message which likely target individuals. It is precise and immediately understandable.

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?

It provides clear context: use for whole-segment broadcasts, not individual messaging, and explains the confirm gate as a prerequisite for actual sending. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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