Duplicate Broadcast

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that the operation creates a draft, not a sent broadcast; that it copies a specific set of fields; that the name is truncated to 70 characters; and that even sent broadcasts can be duplicated. It does not describe the response payload or explicitly confirm the original is untouched, but the 'creates a new draft' language makes the primary behavior clear.

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 cleanly structured with bolded headers, front-loads the core purpose, and each section (purpose, non-goals, triggers) earns its place. It conveys substantial guidance in a compact format without filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it copies, and how it names the result. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly state the return value, though the reference to 'the new draft's ID' implies the response will provide it.

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%, and the schema already documents that broadcastId accepts either a Broadcast ID or a Resend dashboard URL with an example. The description repeats the ID/URL flexibility but adds no new meaning beyond what the parameter schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Duplicate a broadcast by ID or Resend dashboard URL') and precisely defines the output: a new draft with the same fields and a truncated '(copy)' suffix. It also distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like update-broadcast and send-broadcast, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 'NOT for' section explicitly names which sibling to use instead for editing or sending, and the 'When to use' section enumerates the user intents ('copy', 'clone', 'duplicate', 'reuse') that trigger this tool. This gives a clear decision rule to an agent.

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