cigchat_broadcast_to_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that this operation is DANGEROUS, sends to many subscribers at once, costs money, and cannot be undone. It also discloses the required 'Manage Flow' scope and explains the two-step confirmation process, giving the agent all necessary safety information.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes no redundant information. Each sentence earns its place: the first explains what it does and the types, the second covers the danger and the critical confirmation workflow, and the third states the required scope. It is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all critical operational aspects: the target selection (user ns list), the available message types, the dangerous and irreversible nature, the necessary confirmation flow, and the required OAuth scope. It also leaves schedule and rate-limit parameters to the schema, which is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage, with every parameter having a clear description (e.g., `confirm` explains the token, `user_ns_list` explains comma-separated format, `max_per_minute` explains rate limit). The description adds minimal extra semantics beyond re-stating the confirmation flow and types, so it does not need to compensate. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Broadcast sub flow by user ns list', with a specific verb (broadcast), resource (sub flow), and target list (user ns). It also lists the available types (EMAIL, SMS, WHATSAPP_TEMPLATE, FACEBOOK_NOTIFICATION), which immediately distinguishes it from other broadcast tools like broadcast_by_segment or broadcast_by_tag.

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 explicit usage guidance: it tells the agent to first call without `confirm` to get an audience estimate, show it to the human, then re-call with the confirmation token. It also warns about the dangerous nature and required scope. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative broadcast tools (e.g., when to use broadcast_by_segment instead), though the name and description make the distinction clear.

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