whatsapp_templates_write

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

Goes beyond the destructive/openWorld annotations by disclosing the Meta review gate before a template can be used and the important destruction scope: delete by name removes all languages unless templateId is given. It does not mention return payloads or failure modes (e.g. rejected review, duplicate name), so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence then a compact action-indexed block with no filler. The pipe-delimited action lines are dense and slightly run-on, but every clause carries operational information.

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 10-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the risky parts: review workflow, placeholder format, and language-wide deletion. It leaves out what a successful create returns and how to check review status, gaps an agent would still have to discover.

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?

The schema documents most fields (70% coverage) but cannot express conditionality, and the description supplies that: name is create/delete only, templateId is required for update and optional for delete, components replace on update, bodyText is the simple-text shortcut. Placeholder syntax {{1}}, {{2}} is added context not present in the schema.

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 set (create/edit/delete) and resource (WhatsApp message templates) in the first sentence, and the action list enumerates exactly the three supported operations. An agent can separate this from whatsapp_templates_read purely from the description.

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?

Per-action 'Needs:' lines tell the agent exactly which parameters each branch requires, which is genuine decision guidance rather than a restatement. It stops short of naming the read sibling or stating when not to use this tool, so it is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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