send_attachment

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: the type is inferred from the URL extension, and from_id is optional if WASAPI_FROM_ID is configured. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences covering the core action and key behavioral notes. No unnecessary words; every sentence is informative.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 2 required), schema fully described, and annotations present, the description is complete enough. It covers the main purpose, type inference, and optional parameter behavior. Lack of output schema is mitigated by the clarity of the action.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the file type is inferred from the URL extension and that from_id can be omitted if WASAPI_FROM_ID is set, which supplements the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Envía' (sends), the resource 'archivo adjunto por WhatsApp' (attachment via WhatsApp), and the method 'desde URL pública' (from public URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_message, send_template, etc. by specifying the attachment type and source.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to send attachments from a public URL. It explains type inference and optional from_id with fallback. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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