Enviar un broadcast (envío masivo)

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: credit cost, confirmation flow, and sandbox restriction. It aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) and provides specifics that help the agent understand side effects.

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?

Description is concise with a few sentences, front-loading the main purpose. It's in Spanish and reads naturally. Could be slightly shorter, but no wasted 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?

Given the complexity (6 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers essential aspects: cost, user confirmation, sandbox restriction, idempotency. It's complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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% with good descriptions. The description adds minor value by explaining idempotencyKey usage and variable precedence, but this is already implied by the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 sends an approved template to many recipients at once. It uses specific verb 'Enviar' and resource 'plantilla aprobada', and distinguishes from siblings like hilo_send_message (single message) and hilo_validate_broadcast (validation).

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 clear context: costs one credit per recipient, shows list and total to user, waits for confirmation, and is not available in sandbox accounts. It mentions idempotencyKey for retries. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but implies mass sending.

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