cigchat_broadcast_fb_utility_template_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 goes well beyond the schema by revealing that the tool sends to many subscribers, costs money, cannot be undone, requires the 'Manage Flow' scope, and uses a confirmation-token audience-estimate flow. This is rich and honest transparency.

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 and front-loaded: it states the action, endpoint, and danger immediately, then gives the critical workflow and auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested template object, dangerous broadcast) and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: danger, confirmation flow, and required scope. It does not describe the exact estimate response format, but it provides enough for an agent to safely execute the intended two-step flow.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'confirm' parameter's role in the two-step approval flow, but it does not add substantive meaning to the other parameters (e.g., user_id_list, scheduled_time, facebook_utility_message_template) beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the action ('Broadcast'), the specific resource ('Facebook utility message template'), and the targeting scope ('by user ids'). It includes the exact endpoint, which removes ambiguity. The 'by user ids' qualifier also helps distinguish from tag-based or WhatsApp template broadcast siblings.

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 an explicit two-step usage workflow: call once without 'confirm' to get an audience estimate, show it to the human, then re-call with the confirmation token. It strongly warns about the action's dangerous nature (mass send, cost, irreversibility). However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternative broadcast tools or state when not to use it.

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