Остановить рассылку

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: sent messages cannot be recalled, a canceled broadcast cannot be resumed, only a draft can be started again, and counters remain to show delivery reach. This gives the agent a clear picture of irreversibility and 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?

Three sentences deliver the core action and all critical consequences without redundancy. The most important fact is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 cancellation tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens to unsent and sent messages, whether the operation is resumable, how to repeat the broadcast, and what remains visible. Combined with the annotated safety profile and fully documented schema, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'case' and 'broadcast' parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Останавливает рассылку') and immediately clarifies the effect: unsent messages will not be sent. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like broadcasts_start, broadcasts_list, and broadcasts_preview.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a broadcast needs to be stopped before it finishes sending. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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