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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly signals an external submission action and includes a user-confirmation safeguard. It does not mention idempotency, reversibility, auth requirements, or rate limits, but the primary behavioral risk 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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the critical guardrail. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Given a complete parameter schema and a clear, action-guarding description, the agent can select and invoke the tool correctly. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description could add what happens after submission or what the return state indicates to be fully complete.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only reinforces that the template already exists.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Submits') with a clear resource ('existing WhatsApp template from the account library') and target ('Meta Graph API for official review and approval'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_template and list_templates.

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?

The description explicitly states the precondition: 'ONLY invoke this tool after the user has seen the template preview and explicitly confirmed they want to submit it to Meta.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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