Confirmar envio

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations by detailing the mechanism ('pressiona Enter') and the necessary precondition ('após aprovação explícita'). The destructiveHint annotation is consistent with this action, and the description adds context about the approval requirement, enhancing transparency without contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every phrase adds value: the action, the mechanism, and the usage condition. No wasted words.

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's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It states what the tool does, how it does it, and when to use it. The destructive annotation covers safety, and no further explanation of return values is necessary.

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?

There are no parameters to explain (schema coverage is trivially 100%). The description adds context about the 'campo pre-preenchido' (pre-filled field), which helps the agent understand what the tool acts on, even though no parameters exist. This is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'CONFIRMA o envio' (confirms the sending). It also explains the mechanism, 'pressiona Enter no campo pre-preenchido' (presses Enter in the pre-filled field), which differentiates it from siblings like send_message or verify_sent by describing the action as a final confirmation step.

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?

The description provides a clear usage condition: 'Só após aprovação explícita' (Only after explicit approval). This tells the agent when this tool should be used, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a full 5.

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