waha_send_text

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

No annotations at all, so the description carries the full burden: it never says whether a started/connected session is required, what happens on failure, whether the message is queued or delivered immediately, or whether it can be retracted. Only the reply-linking behavior is hinted at.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one non-obvious option. Nothing is repeated from the schema and nothing is wasted.

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 4-parameter mutation with zero annotation and zero schema description coverage, the definition is too thin; an output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but session preconditions and identifier formats are missing.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only clarifies reply_to ('as a message id'). The format of chat_id (e.g. the WhatsApp JID form) and the meaning/scope of session are left entirely undocumented.

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 ('Send a text WhatsApp message'), which cleanly separates it from siblings waha_send_image and waha_send_file. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the 'text' qualifier does the differentiation implicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the other send tools, and no prerequisites such as requiring an active session (waha_start_session) before sending. The only usage-like statement is the optional reply_to note.

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