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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in annotations: the created draft is not customer-visible until published. It does not explain permission requirements, what `name` controls, or why destructiveHint is true for what reads as an additive create.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded, which is efficient. However the second sentence is malformed ('...inbox named' with no object), so the structure fails at the exact point where it should be most informative.

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 mutation tool with three undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: what `name` names, which inbox qualifies, required permissions, and what the created draft contains. The dangling clause actively withholds information the agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0% for all three required parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only obliquely gestures at template_slug ('from a gallery template') and at inbox/name via the broken phrase 'on the WhatsApp Cloud inbox named', adding almost no real semantics and no format or constraint detail.

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?

Clear specific verb + resource: 'Open a new WhatsApp Flow draft from a gallery template', which distinguishes it from publish_whatsapp_flow, delete_whatsapp_flow, and deprecate_whatsapp_flow siblings. The trailing clause 'on the WhatsApp Cloud inbox named' is garbled and dangling, mildly hurting precision, but the core action is unmistakable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the note that 'the draft reaches no customer until it is published' hints that a publish step follows, but no sibling (publish_whatsapp_flow, list_whatsapp_flows) is named, and there is no when-to-use or when-not guidance.

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