Broadcast Message

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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it is asynchronous, returns a jobId immediately rather than sending synchronously, and targeting modes are mutually exclusive. It also discloses auth requirements and error conditions. There is no contradiction with the annotations, and the side-effecting mutation nature is consistent with readOnlyHint=false.

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 compact, front-loaded with the most important async behavior, and every sentence adds necessary information. It covers prerequisites, auth, errors, and related tooling without redundancy or filler.

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 five-parameter tool and no output schema, the description explains the return value (jobId), async nature, targeting exclusivity, required app context, auth modes, and error codes. It also points to the companion wait tool for tracking. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces exclusivity of allRooms/chatIds/chatNames and mentions error conditions tied to targeting, but it adds little meaning beyond what the schema already states. This matches 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 operation: enqueue an asynchronous broadcast job to post a message to one or more rooms, and mentions the returned jobId. It is specific about verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling ethora-chats-broadcast-job-v2, so it stops short of full sibling distinction.

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 concrete context: requires a selected app with at least one room, specifies auth modes, and lists relevant error codes. It references the related tracking tool ethora-wait-broadcast-job-v2. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like ethora-chats-message-v2, but the usage context is clear.

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