Delete a broadcast

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds concrete consequence detail beyond that: the operation may affect delivery, audience membership, published data, or leave irreversible state — valuable context for a destructive call.

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 short sentences with zero padding. The core action leads, the impact warning follows, and the confirm precondition is stated last — a well front-loaded structure.

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?

For a three-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description plus the rich annotations give the agent enough to call it safely. It stops just short of completeness by omitting any guidance on preconditions or how to recover from a mistaken deletion.

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 100%, so account, confirm and broadcast_id are already documented in the schema, including the confirm=true requirement the description repeats. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource ('Delete a broadcast') so an agent can distinguish it from list_broadcasts, get_broadcast and update_broadcast. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the nearest sibling update_broadcast, but the destructive intent is unambiguous.

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 description supplies one operational precondition ('Requires confirm=true'), which is genuine invocation guidance, and the schema adds that confirm should be used only for a user-requested action. However, it never says when to delete a broadcast versus updating one, nor what the caller should verify first.

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