mailkite_send_broadcast

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: it always adds a one-click unsubscribe, it does NOT register automatically and returns a dashboard link for price review and confirmation, and it explicitly states an assistant can never purchase a domain on its own. This is rich behavioral context that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not provide. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the primary action first, then scheduling, then key behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value, and the critical warning about not purchasing domains is placed at the end. No wasted words.

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 main action, scheduling, return value, authentication requirement, and a critical limitation. It doesn't explain what `id` refers to or what the resolved audience count means, but given the tool's complexity and the presence of sibling tools, the description is fairly complete. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description mentioning the return status and audience count.

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%: the `id` parameter is documented as a path parameter, but `scheduledAt` has no description in the schema. The description adds meaning by explaining `scheduledAt` is an ISO 8601 string for scheduling, which compensates for the schema gap. However, it doesn't explain what `id` refers to (likely a broadcast ID), so the description only partially adds value beyond the schema.

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 tool sends a broadcast now or schedules one with an ISO 8601 `scheduledAt` parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mailkite_send, mailkite_send_batch, and mailkite_send_event by focusing on broadcast sending, and it explicitly mentions the return of status and resolved audience count.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to send or schedule a broadcast. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling list. It also mentions the requirement of a management session token, which is a usage prerequisite.

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