Retry a broadcast's failed sends

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description goes further with required scopes, the mandatory confirm: true gate, the Idempotency-Key requirement and server-generated fallback, and workspace override behavior. It does not, however, clarify retry limits, whether already-sent recipients are skipped, or downstream automation 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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by operation/scope/safety metadata in a scannable block. Some lines restate what annotations and schema already carry (the destructive side-effect line), which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described. For a destructive, nested-body mutation the description covers auth scopes, the confirm gate, idempotency, and workspace scoping, leaving only retry semantics (what happens to non-failed recipients, retry limits) unspecified.

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 67%, and most of what the description says about idempotencyKey, confirm, workspaceId, and workspaceSlug is already present in the schema descriptions. The unexplained body.reason and body.failedOnly fields are not compensated for in the description, so it adds limited meaning beyond the schema.

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+scope: retrying failed broadcast recipients only, which distinguishes it from luca_broadcasts_launch, luca_broadcasts_approve, and luca_broadcasts_cancel. It does not explicitly name any sibling or state the boundary between retry and re-launch, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"after operator review" implies the trigger condition, but the description never says when NOT to use this (e.g., when the broadcast was cancelled, or when a full re-launch is needed) nor names an alternative sibling. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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