connect_whatsapp[demo: deshabilitada] Connects WhatsApp Business using the BYOA Meta Embedded Signup model. Primary: returns a signup link. Optional: registers a phone number as a lightweight pre-step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phone | No | Optional WhatsApp Business phone in E.164 format. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the two-step behavior (returning a signup link, optionally registering a phone) but does not elaborate on potential destructive effects, permissions, or failure modes. It provides some added context beyond annotations, but not rich enough for a higher score.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main purpose, then clearly separate primary and optional behaviors. The 'demo: deshabilitada' note is a minor extra but provides environment context without being wasteful.
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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: returns a signup link and optionally registers a phone. It could mention prerequisites or what 'register' implies, but given the low complexity, it is nearly 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 coverage is 100% for the single optional 'phone' parameter. The description adds meaning by explaining that this parameter triggers a 'lightweight pre-step' registration, whereas its absence leads to the primary signup link action. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/format 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?
The description clearly states it connects WhatsApp Business via the BYOA Meta Embedded Signup model, with a primary action (returns a signup link) and an optional pre-step (register a phone number). This distinguishes it from other connect tools (e.g., connect_mercadopago) and WhatsApp messaging tools (send_whatsapp_*).
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 gives clear context on what the tool does (connect WhatsApp Business) and the two modes (primary vs optional). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or mentions of alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic tool selection among connection-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as caja_registrar_movimiento vs register_movement, get_payment_intent_status vs open_cobro_status, and adjust_stock vs stock_load. The distinctions are not immediately clear from names/descriptions, causing a high risk of misselection.
Naming is inconsistent: mixes English and Spanish (caja_*, emit_invoice, send_whatsapp_*), and uses different patterns (open_*, get_*, query_*, list_*, etc.). Some names like stock_load and bulk_price_update don't follow a clear verb_noun convention.
50 tools is excessive for most contexts, even for a broad ERP-like domain. Many are UI widgets (open_*) that add clutter and could be consolidated, making the tool set feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The tool set covers many core business functions (products, suppliers, customers, sales, invoicing, shipping, cash register, payments, integrations). However, there are noticeable gaps: purchase requests have only create (no list/update/delete), shipments cannot be updated/cancelled, and sales lack direct update/query by ID.