enviar_mensagem_chat_cap1g

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

It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the tool confirms the echo in the chat and refuses repetition. However, despite destructiveHint=true, it does not disclose that sending a real message is irreversible or what consequences that may have.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the action, then gives the outcome and a guard condition. There is no wasted text.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, but the description does not place the tool within the cap1g chat lifecycle or explain what 'referencia_chat' refers to. It is minimally viable for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not clarify 'referencia_chat' or any constraints on 'mensagem'. 'mensagem' is reasonably inferable, but the identifier semantics and expected format are left entirely to the agent.

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 ('Envia'), names the resource ('mensagem ao operador'), and states the expected outcome ('confirma o eco no chat'). It clearly distinguishes this send action from the chat workflow siblings like ler_chat_cap1g or encerrar_chat_cap1g.

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 implies this tool is used when a message must be sent to the operator, and the 'recusa repetição' clause warns against duplicate sends. However, it does not state prerequisites (e.g., after iniciar_chat_cap1g) or explicitly compare against the many cap1g chat siblings.

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