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

The annotations already say this tool mutates and is destructive (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true) and acts in the open world (openWorldHint=true). The description adds nothing: it doesn't say that the message goes to a chat, that sending can't be undone, which permissions or instance state are required, or what happens on failure. The three words 'Send a location' don't cover that gap.

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 three words with zero filler, but it is front-loaded with nothing useful. This is under-specification rather than tight writing: there isn't a single sentence that earns its place by conveying information.

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?

This is a six-parameter mutation tool (four required) with no output schema. The annotations carry the safety profile, but the description never explains the target chat, the instance requirement, or the payload shape, so it is not complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly on the description alone.

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 100%, so every parameter (instance_id, chat_id, latitude, longitude, name, address) is documented in the schema. Since the description mentions no parameter at all, baseline 3 applies: the schema carries the full load, and the description fills none of the gap.

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 description 'Send a location' just restates the tool name and title verbatim, giving no more detail. Although it's technically possible to tell it apart from siblings like whatsapp_send_message or whatsapp_send_contact from the name alone, the description adds nothing beyond that label — for example, it doesn't say whether this sends a WhatsApp native location message.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives such as whatsapp_send_message or whatsapp_send_contact. There is no mention of prerequisites, no mention that it needs a connected instance, and no exclusions — an agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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