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

The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: editing components sends the template back through Meta review and changes status to PENDING. This is a significant side effect not captured by the annotations (which only declare idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false). The constraint about at least one parameter being required also adds a precondition.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and constraints. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second explains a critical consequence, and the third states a requirement.

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 no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the action, side effect, and prerequisite. However, it could mention permission requirements or what happens to fields not provided (e.g., if only TTL is updated, components remain unchanged). Still, it covers the essentials for a mutation tool.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions components and message_send_ttl_seconds but doesn't add detailed semantics like format for components or valid TTL ranges beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb (update) and resource (a WhatsApp template's components and/or message_send_ttl_seconds). It distinguishes the two updateable entities and explicitly names the affected fields, allowing an agent to differentiate it from siblings like whatsapp_template_create or whatsapp_template_get.

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 provides a constraint (at least one of components / message_send_ttl_seconds is required), which gives some guidance on when the tool is applicable. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like whatsapp_template_create or what scenarios would alternatively require deletion/recreation.

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