Send Edit (Encoded JSON)

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, so the description's mention of 'edit' aligns with mutation. The description adds that raw json is encoded before invoking bw, providing some behavioral context, but omits other traits like authentication or side effects.

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 with no redundant information. Every clause adds value, explaining the action, payload options, and optional itemId.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not specify the return value (e.g., updated send object or success message). It also lacks prerequisites or error conditions. Despite clear parameters, missing output info reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The tool description clarifies the relationship between encodedJson and json and explains itemId's role, adding marginal value beyond the schema. 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 it edits an existing Send using the advanced bw send edit flow. It distinguishes itself from sibling send tools (create, delete, get, etc.) by specifying the edit action.

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 indicates when to use this tool (to edit a send) and explains the two payload formats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for similar operations.

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