send_location_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a write/send operation, and it discloses almost nothing: not what happens on an invalid recipient, whether delivery is immediate, auth requirements, or rate limits. Only the implicit fact that this mutates state ('envia') is conveyed, plus a passing mention of the Zappaz API.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding; the core action is stated first. The closing 'atraves da Zappaz API' is largely filler, which keeps it just short of maximal conciseness.

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?

For a mutation tool with a nested required object, no annotations, and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. The description omits recipient format (phone number vs. group ID), valid input constraints, and expected outcome, leaving gaps that neither annotations nor structured fields fill.

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?

Stated schema coverage is 0% at the top level, and the description covers neither the 'data' wrapper nor the 'number' recipient field. It does add real meaning for the nested location object by signaling the two mutually alternative modes — address or latitude/longitude — which maps onto the schema's address vs. latitude/longitude properties.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Envia uma mensagem com uma localização'), and adds a mode distinction ('por endereço ou coordenadas') that separates it from send_text_message, send_image_message, and send_contact_message. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, but the operation is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other send_* siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., must the recipient be an existing chat or group), and no exclusions. The agent must infer all routing decisions from the tool name alone.

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