wa_create_template

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that templates undergo Meta review, start with PENDING status, and advises polling wa_get_templates for the result. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema, even though details like error handling or authentication requirements are not covered.

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 well-organized with clear sections for purpose, usage, and inputs. It includes a detailed example for components_json, which adds length but is highly informative. Every sentence serves a purpose, and information is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage.

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 (5 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, parameter details, return value, and follow-up action (polling). It does not explain error handling or request-specific edge cases, but provides sufficient context for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by elaborating on each parameter: naming constraints, language examples, category meaning (affects pricing and review rules), and a concrete components_json example. This goes well beyond the schema's basic descriptions, providing practical guidance for constructing valid input.

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 begins with 'Create a new message template in a WABA,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like wa_get_templates (list), wa_delete_template (delete), and wa_send_template (send). It also clarifies the Meta review process, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 includes an explicit 'When to use' line, stating it is for 'setting up a new outbound notification, marketing or authentication message type.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools for similar circumstances.

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