Send broadcast campaign

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the device requirement and provides a user-facing fallback, but it omits details about the side effects of queueing, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving notable gaps for a mutating tool.

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 only two sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the primary action first. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what action is taken, what prerequisites exist, and what to do when the prerequisite is not met. It could elaborate on post-queue behavior, but it is generally complete enough to guide correct use.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameters, with a clear description for campaign_id ('Campaign id to send'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, which matches the baseline expectation.

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 uses the specific verb 'Queue' and clearly identifies the resource and its applicable states ('draft/queued/paused LoginWA campaign'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools such as create_campaign, list_campaigns, and send_message.

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 gives a concrete usage prerequisite and fallback action (requires at least one online device, otherwise direct user to a URL), which helps the agent decide when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls just short of full marks.

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