Launch a broadcast

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing required scopes (broadcasts:write, luca:queue_ops), data sensitivity (full_content), the Idempotency-Key requirement and server-generated fallback, and the confirm: true rejection behavior. The annotations cover safety profile, but the description adds the operational auth and retry mechanics an agent needs.

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 sentence is front-loaded and the labeled lines (scopes, idempotency, destructive, workspace) are scannable. It is somewhat dense and repeats the destructive/confirm requirement already in the schema, but no line is wasted.

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?

Covers the mutation's preconditions, scopes, failure behavior (rejected without confirm), retry semantics, and workspace override; an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

With 80% schema coverage, the schema already documents confirm, workspaceId, workspaceSlug, and idempotencyKey. The description largely restates those same semantics rather than adding new detail; the only marginal addition is implying {id} is the broadcast identifier via the endpoint line.

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 ('Launch an approved broadcast') and adds the consequence ('Sends messages to live leads'), which distinguishes it from create/approve/preview siblings. An agent can tell what this does and how it differs from the rest of the broadcast family without opening a schema.

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 word 'approved' encodes a real precondition and routes the agent to call approve first. It also states the confirm: true requirement for proceeding. It stops short of naming alternatives (pause/retry/cancel) or explicitly stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without full when/when-not guidance.

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