send_newsletter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the required dashboard runtime dependency, the side effect of recording variant linkage that surfaces on the Content detail page, and the existence of a duplicate-send check (echoed by the force param). It does not state that a real send to subscribers is effectively irreversible/outward-facing, which is the main missing trait.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the optional linking effect and prerequisites. No filler, though the middle sentence is somewhat verbose for the value it adds.

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 4-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, the runtime prerequisite, the side effect, and the duplicate-check escape hatch. Return values and failure modes are not addressed, but schema documentation is complete enough that little 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 all four parameters (post_id, variant_id, preview, force) are already documented in the schema, including defaults like auto-resolving variant_id. The description only restates the variant-linking behavior, adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb (send) and resource (a blog post as a newsletter to subscribers) and adds mechanism (via the dashboard send pipeline), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from send-adjacent siblings like send_to_postiz, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than spelled out: the prerequisites sentence (dashboard app must be running, DASHBOARD_API_URL) gives the operative condition, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for other send targets. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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