Send location pin

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the WhatsApp Web/QR (unofficial) channel, the ban/restriction risk, and that a sent message cannot be reliably un-sent, with a retry-after-timeout warning. The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them; it could still say more about failure responses, but the safety surface is well covered.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then safety constraints follow in a logical order. The ban-risk sentences are long but carry real decision value; a slight trim of the repeated 'do not send unsolicited messages' framing would tighten it further.

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 7-parameter, non-idempotent, destructive send tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical risks: opt-in, channel legitimacy, irreversibility, and retry behavior. It does not describe what a successful or failed send returns, but with no output schema and rich parameter docs the omission is minor.

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 71%, so most parameters (number, digitando, instance_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no coordinate format, name/address fallback behavior, or guidance on when digitando should be disabled, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sends a map location pin') and adds the concrete effect ('opens in Google/Apple Maps'). The resource is unambiguous against siblings like send_text, send_media, and send_poll, so an agent can select it without opening the 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('share an address or meeting point'), explicit when-not-to-use ('Never send bulk or unrequested messages'), a prerequisite (recipient must have opted in), and a confirmation rule when in doubt. Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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