mailkite_update_broadcast

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context: the tool is restricted to drafts and requires a management session token. The phrase 'any of ...' also implies partial updates are possible, which is beyond the schema alone. No contradictions with annotations found.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds the key constraint ('Drafts only') and the auth requirement. Every element earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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?

Despite the tool having 11 parameters, a nested audience object, and no output schema, the description gives no information about return values, update semantics beyond partial updates, or validation behavior. It is sufficient for deciding when to call the tool but not for fully understanding the effects and response of the call.

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?

The schema has only 9% description coverage, and the description merely lists a few field names ('from/subject/audience/html/…') without explaining their meaning, formats, or constraints. It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, especially for complex fields like 'audience' or optional parameters such as 'preview' and 'replyTo'.

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 identifies the action ('Edit'), the resource ('draft broadcast'), and the editable fields ('from/subject/audience/html/…'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling broadcast tools by explicitly saying 'Drafts only,' so an agent can tell it apart from send/delete/get broadcast operations.

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: it applies only to draft broadcasts and requires a management session token. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools like create_broadcast or send_broadcast, but the 'Drafts only' constraint effectively communicates the boundary between this and other broadcast operations.

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