broadcast_off

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Disable'), suggesting this tool changes system state, but doesn't specify effects (e.g., whether it's reversible, impacts on sessions/tabs, or error conditions). No additional context like rate limits or auth needs is included, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally explain more about behavioral aspects (e.g., what 'disable' entails, side effects). The output schema helps, but the description could be more complete for clarity.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it avoids redundancy and focuses on the tool's action.

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 the action ('Disable') and the resource ('input broadcasting'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'broadcast_on' or 'broadcast_add', leaving the scope vague. It's clear but lacks specificity about what 'input broadcasting' entails in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether broadcasting must be enabled first), exclusions, or related tools like 'broadcast_on' for enabling. The description is standalone with no contextual usage hints.

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