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

Adds genuine value beyond the annotations by explaining that passing message replaces the draft text with corrected text at send time — semantics the annotations cannot convey. However, with destructiveHint=true it never states what happens to the draft after sending (consumed, kept, invalidated), which is the key behavioral question for this tool.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the only modifier that matters (message override) plus the gating rule. Nothing is padded, though the semicolon-joined phrasing packs two distinct behaviors into one dense sentence.

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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is sent, how to override it, and the usage gate — but omits post-send state (draft lifecycle) and what a successful send returns or confirms, leaving the agent to infer the outcome.

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 75% and log_id, brand_id, and operation_id are already well documented in-schema, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns the extra point by giving the otherwise undocumented message parameter a clear meaning: it substitutes corrected text for the stored draft.

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?

Uses a concrete verb+resource: sends a draft obtained from list_message_drafts to the chat recipient, which cleanly separates it from list_message_drafts (listing) and send_message (free text). The phrasing 'la persona del chat' is slightly vague about which conversation is targeted, leaving log_id to implicitly identify it.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition — 'Úsala solo cuando el usuario lo pidió' — which is a real when-to-use restriction absent from the annotations. It stops short of naming alternatives (send_message, dismiss_message_draft) or stating when to prefer them, so routing among siblings still requires inference.

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