Повторить рассылку недошедшим

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope behavior beyond that: only undelivered recipients are targeted, and already-delivered recipients are not re-messaged. It omits permission requirements and whether the action can be undone, keeping it from a 5.

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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the non-duplication guarantee following. Well-sized for the complexity.

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?

With full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call the tool correctly: it discloses the scope of the retry. Only the absence of any routing hint toward alternative broadcast tools leaves a minor gap.

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%, and the schema explains all three parameters including the case-default fallback logic and confirm_name's role. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: resends undelivered messages, which cleanly distinguishes it from broadcasts_start, broadcasts_cancel, and broadcasts_delete. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, but the action itself 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 implies the usage context (retrying a broadcast that partially failed) via 'недошедшие сообщения', but never states the prerequisite or when to prefer it over broadcasts_start or broadcasts_save. Usage is left to inference.

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