send_text_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing beyond the act of sending: no mention of authentication/API key requirements, delivery semantics, whether a sent message can be recalled, rate limits, or what happens to group vs. individual targets.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is efficient. But its brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, since it conveys nothing an agent could not get from the tool name alone.

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 mutating message-send tool with a nested required object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the data-envelope contract, quoting/mention mechanics, and the safety profile of an irreversible outbound 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?

The tool-level metric reports 0% coverage, but the nested schema actually documents every leaf field (number, message, delay, quoted, mentions, linkPreview) with meaningful descriptions. The description itself adds nothing about parameters and does not explain the required "data" envelope, so it merely rides on the schema's work.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Envia uma mensagem de texto"), which is clear and implicitly separates it from the sibling send_image/video/audio/document tools. However, it never states scope (direct chat vs. group) or positions itself against those siblings, so an agent gets the action but no disambiguation.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the many alternative send_* siblings. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the text-only channel of a family of message-sending tools.

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