wa_create_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the template is submitted for review, implying an approval workflow, and lists category options. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication/authorization needs, or the meaning of the 'confirm' parameter, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 short and front-loaded, with a clear purpose line and a compact parameter list. There is no redundant or filler content, though it could be more comprehensive without becoming unwieldy.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the required waba_id, language, and confirm parameters, and does not describe the review/approval process in enough detail for an agent to confidently invoke the 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for 6 parameters. The description adds value for category (allowed values) and components (header/body/footer/buttons), but it completely ignores name, waba_id, language, and especially confirm, which is non-obvious from a boolean type.

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 'Submit a new message template for review,' identifying the specific action (submit) and resource (message template). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wa_list_templates, wa_delete_template, and wa_send_template_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?

Usage is implied through the phrase 'new message template for review' and the parameter list, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It does not name alternatives like wa_list_templates or wa_delete_template.

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