send_sticker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention any side effects (e.g., the sticker being sent immediately, required instance connection, error handling for invalid URLs, or whether it's a destructive action). The minimal description leaves significant behavioral gaps for the agent.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the core functionality. Every word is essential, and there is no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and input format, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the purpose.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, 3 required, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the return value (e.g., success message or message ID), error conditions (e.g., invalid URL, instance not connected), or usage prerequisites (e.g., instance must be connected). Compared to chat-related tools in the sibling list, this description lacks necessary context for an agent to use it reliably.

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 input schema has high coverage (86%), so the description adds limited value beyond what the schema already provides. It clarifies that 'sticker' accepts URL or base64, which is consistent with the schema description. Other parameters like 'delay', 'quoted', and 'mentioned' are not elaborated further. The description does not compensate for any schema gaps, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('send a sticker') and specifies the input format ('by URL or base64'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that send other media types like images or audio. However, it does not explicitly mention that the sticker is sent to a WhatsApp number via an Evolution API instance, which is contextually clear from the required parameters but could be more direct.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you have a sticker URL or base64), but it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. Among many sibling send tools, there is no differentiation in terms of use cases, such as 'use for stickers instead of images'. The usage context is only implied by the tool's name and schema.

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