workers_broadcast_quote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals that the tool generates a preview without sending, and its output is a quote_id intended for confirmation. It doesn't disclose edge cases (e.g., what happens if the bot has no replies or if the user has no existing chats), but the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentences, every word earns its place. The first sentence states the action, the second clarifies non-actions and related tool. No filler or repetition.

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 (2 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations but has output schema), the description explains the preview-then-confirm workflow and exclusions. The output schema is present so return values need not be explained. It could mention typical use cases or prerequisites (e.g., must have a ready reply and a worker bot), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 mentions 'rr_id' is implicit (a ready reply ID) and 'group_id' is optional but doesn't clarify the role of group_id (e.g., filter to a specific group). The description adds some context about what the tool does but does not fully explain parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('Preview', 'Does not send') and a clear resource ('one-shot DM blast of a ready reply to everyone who already wrote this worker bot'). It distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools like workers_broadcast_confirm and workers_readyreply_list. However, the phrasing 'DM blast' could be misinterpreted as sending rather than previewing.

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?

Explicitly states that the tool does NOT send, and that sending requires workers_broadcast_confirm(quote_id, confirm=true). It also notes what it does NOT apply to ('Not widget, not folders, not arbitrary ids'), helping the agent avoid misuse. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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