Send image, video, audio or document

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds real operational context beyond them: sends cannot be reliably un-sent, do not retry after a timeout without checking chat history, WhatsApp Web/QR ban risk, and opt-in requirements. This is exactly the safety information an agent needs before calling a high-risk mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and the URL requirement, then types, then usage and risk warnings. Every sentence carries weight, though the ban-risk paragraph is somewhat long and partly restates the destructive annotation hint.

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, destructive, open-world send tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, recipient confirmation, retry behavior, and channel risks. It does not say what a successful send returns (message id, status), which would help an agent verify the outcome.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful meaning the schema does not: ptt is a 'voice message bubble', ptv is a 'round video note', document requires doc_name, and caption applies only to image/video. The 'myaudio' enum value goes unexplained, which keeps it from a 5.

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 media file to a WhatsApp number or group') and enumerates every media type, so the agent can immediately distinguish it from send_text, send_buttons, send_poll, or send_location.

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?

Provides a clear use trigger ('Use when the user wants to deliver a file, picture or voice note') plus explicit when-not constraints (no bulk, no unsolicited messages, opt-in required, confirm recipient when in doubt). It stops short of naming sibling tools like send_text as the alternative for plain text, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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