Send a WhatsApp template message (required when initiating or outside the 24h window).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sender_id | Yes | ||
| variables | No | ||
| template_id | Yes | ||
| recipient_name | No | ||
| recipient_phone | Yes | E.164 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| message | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide basic hints (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds the timing constraint, which is key behavioral context. However, it does not expand on other behavioral aspects like message delivery guarantees or rate limits.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and key constraint. No unnecessary words.
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?
While purpose and usage are clear, the lack of parameter details and limited behavioral transparency leaves the description only adequately complete. An output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 20% (only recipient_phone has a description). The description provides no additional parameter documentation, leaving most parameter semantics unclear.
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 the action ('Send a WhatsApp template message') and adds crucial context about when it is required ('when initiating or outside the 24h window'). This distinguishes it from siblings like send_whatsapp_freeform.
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 indicates when to use this tool ('required when initiating or outside the 24h window'), implying alternatives for other scenarios. This provides excellent usage guidance.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions clearly (e.g., create_assistant vs create_campaign). However, there is some overlap like get_outbound_assistants vs get_assistants and list_all_phone_numbers vs get_phone_numbers, causing minor ambiguity.
Tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., create_document, delete_label, get_voices). Only minor deviations exist, such as generate_ai_reply and list_all_phone_numbers, but overall the pattern is maintained.
With 75 tools, the server is excessively large. Although the domain is broad (assistants, calls, messaging, etc.), the number of tools makes it difficult for agents to navigate and select the correct one, reducing coherence.
The tool set covers CRUD operations for most resources, plus webhooks, AI replies, and reference data fetching. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete_conversation, no attach phone number to assistant), but the surface is largely comprehensive for the platform's purpose.
