send_cta_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Send' without indicating side effects, permissions, delivery guarantees, or error behavior. No behavioral traits are exposed beyond the obvious mutation implied by 'send'.

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 short phrase, which is concise in length but under-specified. It fails to include any explanatory detail beyond the tool name, making it more of a minimal label than a well-structured description. It does not earn its place because it omits critical context needed for correct invocation.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what makes the message 'interactive', how to specify the recipient (phone vs chatId), or the function of header/footer/displayText. The description is far below the minimum viable documentation for such a parameter-rich 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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. The 8 parameters (url, body, displayText, phone, chatId, footer, header, quotedMsgId) are completely unexplained. The phrase 'CTA URL' hints at the url parameter, but it does nothing to clarify required fields, formats, or relationships between parameters.

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 'Send CTA URL interactive message' clearly identifies the action (send) and the resource (a call-to-action URL interactive message). It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_button or send_message by specifying the CTA URL focus. However, it does not explicitly mention the recipient or the interactive nature beyond the name, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an active chat, or when to choose this over send_button or send_template. The absence of any usage context makes it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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