Enviar mensagem

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

The description reveals crucial behavioral traits beyond the annotations: 'NADA é enviado' on the first call, returns a preview, and actual sending only occurs via confirm_send(). This adds important nuance to the destructiveHint=true annotation and clarifies the deferred destructiveness.

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 concise and front-loaded. It leads with the action, then uses a clear step structure (Passo 1/Passo 2) to convey the workflow precisely without wasting 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?

While the two-phase workflow is well explained, the description omits essential details: parameter usage, what the preview contains, and how confirm_send() receives the preview. Given no output schema and 4 ambiguous optional parameters, this leaves an agent under-informed for reliable 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters but only mentions 'texto pre-preenchido.' It fails to define jid, phone, or chat_id, leaving the agent without any guidance on which to use or how they relate to the 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 clearly states 'ENVIA uma mensagem (com confirmação)'—a specific verb and resource—and immediately explains the two-step process, distinguishing this tool from confirm_send by showing it only pre-fills and does not send.

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?

It explicitly provides a step-by-step usage: call this first, then call confirm_send() to press Enter. It names the alternative (confirm_send) and clarifies when to use each step, giving clear usage context.

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