send_audio_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important behavior: conversion to Opus .ogg when needed, dependency on ffmpeg, fallback to send_file on ffmpeg error, and a success/status return shape. It stops short of covering permissions, size limits, or idempotency, but is substantially transparent for a send 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then uses a readable Args/Returns structure. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the Args formatting repeats parameter names already in the schema, making it slightly less tight than it could be.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, both parameter formats, conversion behavior, an important failure mode with a fallback, and the return shape. It leaves only minor gaps such as authentication or file-size constraints.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does: recipient is explained as a phone number without symbols or a JID with concrete examples, and media_path is explained as an absolute path with a note that non-.ogg files are converted. Both required parameters gain essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: send any audio file as a WhatsApp audio message to a recipient. It is immediately distinguishable from send_file (binary file) and send_message (text), and the explicit fallback to send_file when audio conversion fails further clarifies its role.

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 states a clear operational context (use JID for groups) and an explicit alternative for the ffmpeg-missing error case. It does not provide general when-not-to-use guidance versus send_file or send_message, but the intended usage is strongly implied.

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