canvas_trigger_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only the API-triggered precondition. It says nothing about whether the send is immediate, how broadcast versus recipients interact, whether recipient lists are deduplicated, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond the presence of an apiKey parameter.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the operative precondition is front-loaded rather than buried. Nothing in the text needs to be removed.

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?

For a 7-parameter, nested-object, no-annotation, no-output-schema trigger tool, the description is significantly under-specified. An agent can identify the operation but lacks the information needed to construct a correct payload for broadcast or audience-based sends.

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 only 57% across 7 parameters with nested objects, so the description needs to compensate and does not. Non-obvious parameters such as broadcast, audience, send_to_existing_only, and the top-level versus per-recipient canvas_entry_properties distinction are left entirely undocumented here.

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 gives a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('Canvas'), so the agent knows exactly what operation it performs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling campaigns_trigger_send or from messages_send, but the Canvas-versus-Campaign distinction is inherent in the name.

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 states one important precondition -- the Canvas must already be configured as API-triggered in Braze -- which implies when this tool is applicable. However, it offers no guidance on when to prefer this over campaigns_trigger_send, messages_send, or the canvas_schedule_* family.

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