Составить или поправить рассылку

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

Beyond the generic annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: drafts never send until started, started broadcasts are immutable via this tool, editing replaces selection conditions wholesale rather than merging them, and HTML markup is validated at save time because Telegram would reject unclosed tags. This is substantive behavioral context not available from annotations or schemas.

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 dense but efficient: five sentences, each carrying operational meaning, with the most important create-vs-edit distinction front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, state transitions, edit semantics, and validation. The only notable gap is that it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., an identifier of the saved broadcast), which an agent might need when chaining calls.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds crucial semantics on top: the `broadcast` parameter switches between creation and editing, and the edit path replaces all selection-related conditions instead of appending to them. It also ties `parse_mode` behavior to the panel-side HTML validation warning.

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 states a precise action and object: without `broadcast` it creates a draft, with `broadcast` it edits an existing draft or a scheduled broadcast. It also distinguishes itself from the relevant siblings by naming `broadcasts_start` and `broadcasts_cancel`, so the agent cannot confuse it with launching or stopping a broadcast.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool with and without the `broadcast` parameter, and gives a clear when-not-to-use rule: a started broadcast cannot be edited and must be stopped via `broadcasts_cancel`. It also documents the edit behavior for selection conditions, giving the agent a concrete decision framework.

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