ads_mastodon_message_batch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does add real value by stating the confirm gate, that the list is ordered, and that items are never auto-generated. It omits whether sends are irreversible, what happens if one message in the batch fails (partial send?), and any rate-limit or permission behavior for a mutation touching up to 50 messages.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the operation and its safety gate come first, then the per-item structure and the anti-auto-generation constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No annotations and no output schema mean the description must cover the whole behavioral contract for a batch mutation. It establishes the confirm gate and item shape but leaves return/result semantics and failure handling unstated, which matters when 1-50 messages are sent in one call.

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 75% and already documents confirm, delay_ms and the messages array. The description adds sequencing semantics ('ordered list') and the explicitness guarantee that each item must carry recipient, exact text and mode, which the schema shape alone does not convey; account_id remains undocumented in both places.

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 names a specific verb (send) and resource (an ordered list of Mastodon direct messages, public mentions or replies), plus the confirm=true precondition. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the single-message siblings ads_mastodon_direct_message, ads_mastodon_public_mention and ads_mastodon_reply, so the agent must infer the batch-vs-single split.

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?

It gives one real precondition ('after confirm=true') and a negative constraint ('discovery never creates items automatically'), which implies this is for explicitly authored lists only. However there is no guidance on when to pick this over the per-message siblings, nor on limits such as the 50-item cap being a consideration.

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