Send Broadcast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses prerequisites (broadcast must be created first), return value (send confirmation and broadcast ID), scheduling behavior (natural language or ISO 8601, sent immediately if not provided), and workflow. It does not detail potential side effects (e.g., status change or irreversibility), but provides substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Purpose, NOT for, Returns, When to use, Workflow). Each section adds value, and the content is front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant or wasted sentences.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is thorough. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, the prerequisite workflow, return value, and scheduling semantics. Sibling differentiation is strong, and the missing output schema is partially compensated by the explicit 'Returns' note.

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%, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already states. It reinforces the workflow relationship between broadcastId and create-broadcast, but does not introduce new parameter-level details. Baseline 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 clearly states 'Send (or schedule) an existing broadcast by ID.' It specifies the verb (send), resource (broadcast), and explicitly distinguishes from create-broadcast (creation) and send-email (one-off email). The 'NOT for' section reinforces differentiation from siblings.

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 'When to use' section lists concrete scenarios (e.g., 'user says send it', 'schedule this for tomorrow') and explicitly states what the tool is NOT for (sending one-off emails, creating content). It also provides a workflow (create-broadcast → send-broadcast) and mentions list-broadcasts as an alternative for finding existing broadcasts.

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