mailkite_delete_broadcast

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, the description's burden is reduced. It adds two useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: the auth requirement (management session token) and the 'draft' restriction, implying only drafts are deletable. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the auth prerequisite is appended without bloating the description. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter delete operation with rich annotations covering safety semantics, the description adequately covers what the tool does and a key prerequisite. Omissions like return behavior or edge cases (e.g., deleting a sent broadcast) are minor given the simple shape, but there is still slight room for more explicit guidance.

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% because 'id' has a description, but that description ('Path parameter `id`.') is tautological and uninformative. The tool description hints that 'id' refers to a broadcast draft, which adds some context, but it never explicitly maps the parameter to the resource. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a broadcast draft.' The qualifier 'draft' narrows the scope, and the resource is distinct from the many other delete tools in the sibling list (delete_sequence, delete_domain, etc.). An agent can tell exactly what this tool operates on without ambiguity.

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 implies the tool should be used when a broadcast draft needs to be deleted and even states a prerequisite ('Requires a management session token'). However, it offers no explicit when/not-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not differentiate itself from sibling deletion tools beyond the resource name in the tool name.

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