Cancel a broadcast

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real value on top: required scopes, the idempotency-key requirement with retry semantics, and the full_content data sensitivity. It stops short of stating whether cancellation is reversible or what happens to in-flight sends.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by operation path, scopes, idempotency, and workspace override in a tight, scannable block. No filler sentences, though the scope/data-sensitivity line is somewhat dense.

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 not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the remaining operational essentials (auth scopes, idempotency, workspace targeting), leaving only the reversibility question open for a destructive operation.

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 a middling 60%, with workspaceId, workspaceSlug, and idempotencyKey already documented in the schema. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the workspace override ('override the default workspace configured by environment') and retry behavior, but says nothing about the body.reason parameter.

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 (cancel) and resource (broadcast) and enumerates the valid source states (draft, approved, running, paused, failed). This clearly separates it from sibling verbs like pause, retry, launch, and approve, though it never explicitly contrasts cancel with pause.

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 state list implies when the operation is valid, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to cancel versus the closely related luca_broadcasts_pause, nor any when-not conditions or prerequisites beyond the required scopes.

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