Approve a broadcast

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: required scopes (broadcasts:write, luca:queue_ops), full_content data sensitivity, the Idempotency-Key requirement, and that recipients are snapshotted. These are not derivable from the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints alone. It stops short of describing what approval irreversibly commits or the exact side effects.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first line, then layers structured metadata (operation, scopes, idempotency, workspace) in short, scannable sentences. Slightly boilerplate-heavy but every line carries operational information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no description, and the entry covers auth scopes, idempotency, and workspace context for a 5-param mutation. The main gap is that the required previewVersion input, which gates the approval, is unexplained at the description level.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description usefully explains idempotencyKey ('safe retries, or server generates one') and the workspaceId/workspaceSlug override. However, the crucially required body.previewVersion param and the bare id param get no description-level explanation, leaving the schema-only gap unclosed. Baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Approve a safe broadcast draft and snapshot recipients'), naming the exact operation POST /api/broadcasts/{id}/approve. It is distinguishable from siblings like luca_broadcasts_preview and luca_broadcasts_launch, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Provides operational prerequisites (required scopes, idempotency key, workspace override) but no when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to adjacent tools such as launch, preview, or pause. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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