send_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action and resource, with no mention of side effects, authentication requirements, message delivery behavior, response format, or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a tool that sends interactive flow messages.

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 sentence, which is compact, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It provides no useful structure or detail, similar to the 'Process' example in the calibration, where brevity without substance warrants a low score.

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 (15 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what a Flow Message is, how the parameters interact, when this tool is appropriate, or what the expected outcome is, making it nearly useless for an agent.

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?

The schema has 15 parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. The description does not explain any parameter's purpose or relationship, so the agent must rely solely on parameter names and enums, which are insufficient for complex settings like flowActionData and flowActionPayload.

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 WhatsApp Flow Message' uses a specific verb ('Send') and a distinct resource type ('WhatsApp Flow Message'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like send_message, send_button, and send_list. It is clear but terse, lacking any elaboration on what constitutes a Flow Message.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tool comparisons, leaving the agent without context for choosing send_flow over other send_* tools.

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