cigchat_broadcast_by_user_id

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 explicitly labels the tool as DANGEROUS, states it sends to many subscribers at once, costs money, cannot be undone, requires a two-step confirmation, and demands the 'Manage Flow' scope. This is exceptional transparency for a high-impact mutation tool.

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 two sentences and tightly packed: the first states action and types, the second bundles danger, cost, irreversibility, confirmation flow, and scope. It includes the endpoint as useful context and contains no filler or redundant text.

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 high-risk broadcast tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential decision-making information: what it does, target audience, channels, financial/irreversibility warning, confirmation protocol, and auth requirement. Combined with a rich 100%-coverage schema, nothing critical is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description does reinforce the two-step `confirm` workflow and lists the allowed `type` values, but the schema already fully explains each parameter with examples and descriptions. The added value over the schema is minimal, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource ('Broadcast sub flow') and the targeting dimension ('by user ids'), then enumerates allowed channel types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling broadcast/send tools that target by segment, tag, list, or single user (e.g., cigchat_broadcast_by_segment, cigchat_send_subflow_by_user_id).

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 gives explicit usage guidance: call once without `confirm` to get an audience estimate, present it to the human, then re-call with the token. It also warns about costs, irreversibility, and the required scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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