delete_broadcast

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

The description explicitly states 'Performs a soft-delete on the requested message,' which adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint). It also marks the tool as destructive upfront. There is no contradiction with the provided 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 extremely concise, consisting of a header line, a one-line summary, and two short sentences. It is front-loaded with the destructive warning and uses clear language. Every element serves a purpose: specifying the HTTP method, endpoint, resource type, deletion nature, user confirmation requirement, and deletion method.

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 lacks details about the return value or output format, which is important given there is no output schema. It also does not mention any prerequisites, permissions, or scope (e.g., who can delete a broadcast). While soft-delete is noted, the agent may need more information to use the tool correctly, such as what happens upon success or if the broadcast must be in a certain state.

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 input schema has one parameter 'id' with description 'Broadcast ID', and the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add further detail about the parameter's constraints, format, or relationship to other entities. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not provide extra semantic value.

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 'Delete broadcast message' and specifies it performs a soft-delete on a broadcast message. The header includes 'Sms' and the endpoint, making the target resource unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from many other delete tools by focusing on broadcast messages.

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 includes the important instruction to 'Confirm with the user before calling,' which is a safety guideline for destructive operations. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other delete methods) or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not fully elaborated.

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