Send Text Blast

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

Goes well past the annotations: discloses multi-channel fan-out (text, email, push, feed), irreversibility ('cannot be taken back'), two distinct rate/cap rules, the 100-invited refusal, and the fact that the response omits remaining-blast quota. This is exactly the destructive, non-idempotent behavior an agent must know before calling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the critical irreversibility warning comes early. The 10-blast limit is stated twice (first line and again later), which is the one clearly removable 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?

With no output schema and a destructive mutation, the description does the heavy lifting: it explains what the response reports (recipients/by_status counts) and what it omits (blasts remaining). Docking one point because the naming of response fields not present in the schema invites confusion about the call shape.

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 message length, statuses enum, and show_on_event_page default are already documented; the description mostly restates them. It adds the useful note that counts are computed 'at the moment of sending,' but its reference to 'recipients and by_status' names fields that appear nowhere in the input schema, which can read as phantom parameters.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Text a message to guests by RSVP status.' No sibling tool does anything comparable (invite_guests adds people, list_guests reads them), so the agent can distinguish it on purpose alone.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions and conditions for use: host-only, RSVP-status targeting, 10 blasts per event, refusal when Invited exceeds 100 or a chosen status reaches nobody. It doesn't explicitly route the agent to alternatives (e.g., invite_guests to add recipients, list_guests to preview counts), which keeps it below a 5.

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