send_text

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains the two-step confirmation, that the first call does not send anything, that a preview is returned, and that sending only occurs after confirmation. This is exactly the kind of side-effect-related behavior an agent needs to know.

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 only three sentences, with the purpose stated first and the procedural instructions kept tight and readable. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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 no annotations, the description covers the essential safety and sequencing behavior well. It still leaves the optional instance and responder_id parameters unexplained, which matters in multi-instance or reply-context scenarios, but the core invocation path is fully specified.

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 for parameter explanations. It clearly explains confirmar's False/True contract, but it does not explain chat, texto, instance, or responder_id beyond their bare titles. Since most parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, the compensation is incomplete.

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 opens with 'Envia uma mensagem de texto', a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. This also differentiates it from the sibling send_media, which handles media rather than text.

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 gives explicit step-by-step usage: call with confirmar=False, nothing is sent, show the preview, then call again with confirmar=True only after user approval. This is unambiguous operational guidance and leaves little to inference.

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