cigchat_delete_broadcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is destructive and irreversible, requires a specific scope, and outlines the two-step confirmation process. It does not describe return values or side effects beyond deletion, but the key destructive behavior is clearly stated.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then flags destructiveness, then gives usage steps. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is 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?

The description covers the essential aspects: what is deleted, the destructive nature, the confirm flow, and the scope requirement. It does not mention the return format or what the impact statement contains, but for a delete tool with no output schema, these are minor gaps. The 'current flow' context is somewhat vague but acceptable.

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 50%: only 'confirm' has a description. The description adds context for 'confirm' (two-step confirmation) but says nothing about 'broadcast_ns', which also lacks a schema description. Thus, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter meaning, leaving agents to guess what broadcast_ns refers to.

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 states a clear verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('cancelled broadcast and its recipient records'), and scope ('current flow'). It distinguishes from siblings like cigchat_cancel_broadcast and cigchat_list_broadcasts by focusing on deletion of cancelled broadcasts, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to call without 'confirm' first to get an impact statement, then pass the token after human approval. It also notes the required 'Send Message' scope. While it doesn't name alternatives, the purpose and scope are clear enough to guide usage, though it could mention when not to use it (e.g., for non-cancelled broadcasts).

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