send_audio_message

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses transcoding behavior for non-ogg inputs, prerequisite (ffmpeg on PATH), the return JSON structure with fields, and that the action is reversible. Annotations are consistent (readOnlyHint false), no 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 compact with three sentences covering purpose, alternatives, prerequisites, and return format. No redundant phrases, though the information density is high – each sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (JSON with Success, Message, ID). It covers prerequisites, reversible nature, and distinguishes from sibling tools. For a tool with 4 parameters, it provides all necessary contextual information.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description does not add new semantic details about parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send an audio file as a WhatsApp voice note') and clearly identifies the resource and output format (waveform UI, push-to-play). It distinguishes from the sibling tool send_file by stating the alternative use case, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (voice note) versus the alternative send_file (regular attachment). It also mentions reversibility via delete_message, providing clear context for when it's appropriate to invoke.

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