Enviar mensagem

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-idempotent, open-world mutation, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it marks the conversation as handled (a side effect), refuses duplicates, and enforces length and rate limits. This is solid disclosure of failure modes and side effects, though it doesn't explain what happens to the rate-limited message or the response shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the reply variant, then side effects and constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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 10-param mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, the reply shortcut, the mark-as-read side effect, and the main rejection paths. Return behavior is left implicit, but no output schema exists and the format param partly covers it, making this nearly complete.

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 the schema already documents all 10 parameters, including split, replyTo and format. The description restates the replyTo effect and the 2000-char/split boundary but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Envia) + resource (mensagem) + scope (canal, DM ou thread). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling reply_message by stating that replyTo makes it a reply, so the agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

It explains the key routing condition: use replyTo to reply, which is equivalent to reply_message. It also lists rejection conditions (duplicates, >2000 chars without split, rate limiting), giving clear context. It doesn't explicitly say when to prefer a different sibling like open_dm first, so it falls short of a 5.

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