Remove Broadcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly warns that 'removing a broadcast is irreversible' and instructs the agent to warn the user. This is a critical behavioral disclosure for a destructive operation, going well beyond a simple 'removes' and covering the consequence and required pre-action.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then adds necessary safety instructions. However, there is slight redundancy: 'you MUST double-check' and 'You may only use this tool if the user explicitly confirms' express similar requirements. While the content is valuable, it could be tightened without losing meaning. Still, every sentence contributes to the safe usage of the tool.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, this description is fully sufficient. It covers the action, input format, irreversible nature, and the required confirmation workflow. There are no missing pieces that would prevent an agent from using the tool correctly in context.

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 already provides 100% coverage: 'Broadcast ID or Resend dashboard URL (e.g. https://resend.com/broadcasts/<id>)'. The tool description repeats 'by ID or Resend dashboard URL' without adding new semantic detail. The mention of referencing the 'NAME of the broadcast' is about the confirmation process, not the parameter meaning itself. Therefore, the description does not add 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 action: 'Remove a broadcast by ID or Resend dashboard URL.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings like update-broadcast or get-broadcast. It also specifies the input format, which removes 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 provides a strong procedural requirement: 'Before using this tool, you MUST double-check with the user' and 'You may only use this tool if the user explicitly confirms.' This gives clear context on when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool beyond the confirmation requirement, so it's not a full 5.

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