send_audio_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add meaningful behavioral context: automatic conversion to Opus .ogg if needed, the ffmpeg dependency, and the return shape. It does not disclose permission/auth requirements or the irreversibility of sending a WhatsApp message, which would be needed for a full 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?

The purpose and the sibling fallback are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by compact Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds information; there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter send tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description covers the critical call details: addressing formats, path expectations, auto-conversion, and the ffmpeg fallback. Missing authorization/side-effect notes keep it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters well: recipient format (country code without symbols, or JID examples like '123456789@s.whatsapp.net' and '123456789@g.us') and media_path as an absolute path with conversion behavior. It could still specify supported input formats or relative-path behavior for a 5.

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 and resource ('Send any audio file as a WhatsApp audio message') and implicitly distinguishes itself from send_file by naming that sibling as the fallback when ffmpeg is missing. An agent can tell this is the audio-message sending tool, not generic file or text sending.

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 clear when-to-use guidance for the most relevant alternative: 'If ffmpeg isn't installed, use send_file instead.' It also clarifies group-message addressing via JID. It does not explicitly contrast with send_message for text, but the audio-vs-text distinction is implicit in the purpose.

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