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

Annotations cover the safety profile (writes, open-world, destructive, idempotent), and the description adds behavior they do not: creation triggers an external Meta review that is asynchronous and can fail, plus the {{1}} placeholder syntax for variables. It stops short of saying what a created template returns or how rejection surfaces.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and then the two most valuable addenda (argument sourcing and the approval constraint). No filler, though the campaign sentence slightly overlaps the approval sentence.

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?

The external-approval workflow and ID sourcing are covered, which is the hardest part for an agent to infer, but with 9 parameters, one enum, and no output schema, the absence of any guidance on category, language, or header/footer leaves real gaps in calling 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 only 11%, so the description must carry the burden, but it explains just two inputs (connection_id/account_id origin) and the body_text variable syntax. Seven parameters — name, category enum, language default, header_text, footer_text, brand_id — get no meaning from the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Crea una plantilla en la cuenta de WhatsApp Business conectada') plus the downstream effect (submission to Meta for approval). No sibling creates templates, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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 a prerequisite chain: connection_id and account_id come from list_accounts, and it warns that campaigns can only use approved templates, which implicitly sequences it before whatsapp_create_campaign/whatsapp_send_campaign. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., reusing an existing approved template).

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