whatsapp_prepare_send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it does not send and returns a token, indicating non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose any side effects, prerequisites, or authorization needs.

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 very concise with two sentences that front-load the key behavior. It could be slightly expanded to cover parameter usage without losing conciseness.

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 8 parameters and no schema description, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the two-step workflow, how to use the returned token, or how to choose between the many optional parameters. The output schema might cover the token, but the input side is neglected.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of any of the 8 parameters. It only mentions 'text/media' which loosely maps to message_text and send_items, but no details on how to specify recipients or other fields.

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 the tool prepares sending text/media but does not send, and returns a token requiring confirmation. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'whatsapp_confirm_send_message', which is the subsequent step.

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 implies it is a preparation step before confirmation, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus other siblings like 'whatsapp_probe_send_media' or 'whatsapp_probe_reply_to_message'. The two-step workflow is clear though.

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