evolution_message_send_sticker

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as success/failure responses, mutation effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The schema provides parameter details but no behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence with no extraneous words, front-loading the core purpose. However, it may be overly brief given the tool's complexity, but still earns high marks for conciseness.

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?

Despite parameter schema coverage, the description omits critical context: no output description, no error handling hints, no explanation of prerequisite instance configuration (related to 'instance' param), and no guidance on sticker format constraints beyond schema notes. The tool's high parameter count (7) and nested objects require more high-level context for effective use.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions covering their meaning (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal extra value beyond high-level input method. The description's mention of 'URL or base64' is redundant with the sticker parameter's schema description.

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') and resource ('sticker'), with specific mention of input format ('URL or base64'). This uniquely identifies the tool among sibling send tools like evolution_message_send_media, which handles multiple media types but not specifically stickers.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sending methods (e.g., evolution_message_send_media). Prerequisites like active instance or connection status are not mentioned, and no when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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