send_image

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 does state the public-URL constraint, but it does not disclose whether the URL is fetched server-side, whether a caption is permitted, error cases, or any permission requirements. This is thin for a mutation operation.

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 that states the action, object, recipients, and method in 14 words. There is no filler or redundancy, so every word earns its place.

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 simple four-parameter send tool with a complete schema, the description covers the core action but lacks guidance relative to sibling send_file and does not disclose return or error behavior. With no output schema and no annotations, this leaves the agent with some uncertainty, though the schema fills most parameter gaps.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The text adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states: 'public URL' and destination types appear in the schema's property descriptions.

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 ('Send'), resource ('an image'), and destination types ('contact, group, or channel') plus the transport method ('public URL'). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling send_file tool, which may also handle images.

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 no guidance about when to use this tool instead of send_text_message or send_file. There are no exclusions, prerequisites like an active session, or conditions that would help an agent choose among siblings.

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