send_file

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

The description adds several behavioral traits beyond annotations: it's reversible via delete_message, persists to local cache, and returns a JSON object with specific fields. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false, which the description reinforces. 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and efficiently covers usage guidelines and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 explicitly states the return JSON structure. It covers the tool's purpose, parameters (via schema), usage guidelines, and behavioral traits, making it fully informative for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description does not add new parameter meaning 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 clearly states it uploads and sends a picture, video, document, or raw audio via WhatsApp, specifying the recipient sees a media message and it's persisted to cache. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_audio_message and send_message, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 tells when to use alternatives: 'For voice notes use send_audio_message; for plain text use send_message.' It also mentions reversibility via delete_message, providing clear context on when to use this tool.

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