broadcast-event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Broadcast' implies a write operation that sends data to multiple recipients, but the description doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the room doesn't exist, whether events are persisted, rate limits, or what constitutes success/failure. This is critically inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it does convey, though the brevity contributes to the lack of detail in other dimensions.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and 2 parameters including a nested object, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool runs, what the event object should contain, how rooms are identified, or what the expected outcome is. The agent would be operating almost blindly when using this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It mentions 'room' and 'event' but doesn't explain what a roomId format should be, what types of events are valid, or any constraints on the event object structure. With 2 required parameters and nested objects, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how to properly invoke the tool.

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 action ('broadcast an event') and target resource ('to a Liveblocks room'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its many siblings (like 'trigger-inbox-notification' or 'update-room'), which also involve room operations, leaving room for confusion about when to choose this specific broadcast function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 34 sibling tools including many room-related operations (e.g., 'create-room', 'update-room', 'trigger-inbox-notification'), there's no indication of when broadcasting an event is appropriate versus other room manipulation methods. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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