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

Annotations already flag the write/destructive/open-world profile, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: submission goes to Meta as an external review process, the resource is unusable until APPROVED, and a human approval step is involved. It stops short of saying whether failed submissions can be edited or what the call returns.

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?

Front-loaded with a [publish] tag and the core action, then dense parentheticals covering lifecycle, formats and enums. Every clause carries information, though the packed bracket style makes it dense to scan.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and only hint-level annotations, the description covers creation, submission flow, required formats and the state-check follow-up. The only real omission is what the call returns on success (template id, review state) and whether resubmission is possible after rejection.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: name charset constraints, language format examples, the three category values (which the schema itself doesn't enumerate), the components array shape with a BODY example and optional HEADER/FOOTER/BUTTONS, and the POSITIONAL/NAMED values for parameter_format. This adds substantial meaning the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Submit a new WhatsApp message template ... to Meta for review") and scopes it to an account via wp_account_id/wp_account_uuid. It is clearly distinguishable from list_wp_templates, sync_wp_templates and send_wp_template, which it references by name.

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?

Explains the lifecycle condition that matters: the template is sendable only once APPROVED, and sync_wp_templates shows its state, with an explicit note that human approval is required. It doesn't explicitly contrast with create_template/create_website_templates siblings, but the WhatsApp-specific framing plus named follow-up tool make usage clear.

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