send_fileSend any image, video, audio, voice note, or document from your computer as a WhatsApp message to a contact, group, or phone number.
Send an image, video, audio file, voice note, or document from a local path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Contact name, group name, phone number, or jid | |
| kind | No | auto | |
| path | Yes | Absolute path to the file on this computer | |
| caption | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions sending files but does not describe side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or how the 'auto' kind determines the file type. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.
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, efficient sentence with no filler. The main action and supported file types are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a 50% schema description coverage, the description leaves gaps around parameter semantics, usage conditions, and behavioral expectations. It is adequate for identifying the tool's basic purpose but not for fully supporting correct invocation.
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 50%, documenting only 'to' and 'path'. The description enumerates file types that map to the 'kind' enum, adding some meaning, but it does not clarify the 'caption' parameter or the behavior of the 'auto' default. The description partially compensates for the undocumented parameters.
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 specific verb ('Send') and a clear resource: image, video, audio, voice note, or document from a local path. This clearly differentiates it from text-messaging tools like send_message, though it does not explicitly contrast it with other file-related tools.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_message or broadcast_message. The only contextual clue is 'from a local path,' which implies local file sending, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.