send_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a material behavioral trait: two-step confirmation. However, it does not explain the mechanics of that confirmation, side effects of sending, or what the confirmar parameter actually controls.

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 text is compact, front-loads the core action, and adds a useful list of media types without redundant filler. It earns its place, though the tipo list is telegraphic and could be formatted slightly more cleanly.

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 six parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers only the operation and media kinds. It omits the required chat target, confirmation semantics, and most parameter behaviors, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only covers two parameters: arquivo (local or URL) and tipo (enumerated values). The required chat parameter, legenda, instance, and confirmar are left unexplained.

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 action ('Envia um arquivo local ou URL') and identifies the resource scope as media, which is distinct from sibling send_text. It also enumerates the accepted media categories, making the tool's 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_text, get_media, or transcribe_file. The reference to send_text is only about the confirmation behavior, not a usage condition or exclusion.

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