send_whatsapp_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns: 'Write: irreversible; delivers a real WhatsApp message to the customer,' which is a strong, actionable warning about side effects. It does not mention failure modes, rate limits, or whether a request can be duplicated, but the core irreversible write behavior is clearly disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action, the second provides parameter sourcing, and the third warns about irreversibility. The description is front-loaded with purpose and avoids filler.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter provenance and irreversible side effects, which are the most important operational facts. It does not address what success or failure responses look like, which would be helpful but is not essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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 for the schema's bare titles. It does so by mapping every parameter to its source tool, grouping namespace/name/lang/params from list_whatsapp_templates and user_ns from find_contact. This gives the agent practical provenance but does not detail the exact shape or format of params beyond what the schema shows.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Send an approved WhatsApp template to one contact.' It clearly differentiates from siblings like send_text and trigger_flow by specifying a template-based message rather than free text or flow execution.

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 clear sourcing context: 'user_ns from find_contact; namespace/name/lang/params from list_whatsapp_templates,' which tells the agent where to obtain each parameter. It lacks explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like send_text, but the template-specific purpose and parameter provenance make the intended context clear.

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