whatsapp_send_video

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Send a video message,' omitting behavioral traits such as permissions requirements, error handling, or side effects. Minimal transparency.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format or additional context without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema and four parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites like file size limits. The tool is part of a large sibling group with no discriminative guidance.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond reinforcing that video_url must be publicly accessible. The description does not elaborate on optional parameters like caption or reply_to_message_id.

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?

Description clearly states the tool sends a video message to a WhatsApp phone number. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like whatsapp_send_image or whatsapp_send_audio, though the name and parameter 'video_url' imply the purpose.

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 mentions the prerequisite of a publicly accessible video URL, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for images or documents). No when-not-to-use or context for selection among sibling tools.

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