workers_broadcast_confirm

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the action requires 'confirm = true', that the quote expires in ~5 minutes causing a 409 error on reuse, and that status updates go to a 'mailing topic'. This is good transparency for a mutation tool, though it omits details like idempotency or required permissions.

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 consists of three short, information-packed sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose immediately. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct behavioral constraint or side effect. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (three parameters, one required) and the existence of an output schema (which can document return values), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, the confirm requirement, the quote lifetime, and the status destination. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., having a valid quote_id) but implies them. The omission of 'group_id' is a minor gap. Overall, it is sufficient for competent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the 'confirm' parameter ('confirm must be true') and indirectly covers 'quote_id' through the 'quoted bot-user blast' phrasing and the lifetime/error hint. However, 'group_id' is entirely omitted, leaving its purpose unclear. The description adds value for two out of three parameters but does not fully address all schema gaps.

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's verb ('Start'), resource ('quoted bot-user blast'), and scope. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like workers_broadcast_quote (which creates a quote) by indicating this tool executes the blast. The mention of error code 409 on reuse further clarifies its specific role in the broadcast workflow.

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 strong contextual cues: 'confirm must be true' indicates a required precondition, and 'Quote lives ~5 min; reuse 409' gives a timeout constraint and expected error. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. other confirm-type siblings (e.g., workers_salary_confirm), nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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