peach_launch_broadcast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create and launch' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, whether the broadcast is reversible, what happens on failure, or expected response format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves significant API changes.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by clearly stating the action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity (a broadcast campaign tool with nested parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling, success indicators, or integration with sibling tools (e.g., template management), leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.

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 the schema fully documents the single nested parameter 'broadcast' and its properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it's for 'multiple contacts,' which is already covered in the schema's 'contacts' and 'audience_id' fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Create and launch') and resource ('broadcast campaign to multiple contacts via the Peach API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like peach_send_template_message or peach_send_app_message, which also involve sending messages, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a WhatsApp template), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like peach_send_template_message (for single messages) or peach_list_templates (for listing templates), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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