send_whatsapp

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosure. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., message delivery behavior, idempotency), authentication requirements, rate limits, or consequences of invalid inputs (e.g., non-existent template, malformed number). Only basic supported message types are listed.

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, well-formed sentence that efficiently captures the tool's purpose and supported message types. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. However, it could be shortened by removing 'via Convertway' if that is a branding detail.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, nested objects (templateParams), and no output schema or annotations. The description only lists high-level message types, ignoring crucial details like parameter dependencies (e.g., templateId requires templateParams, mediaUrl requires mediaType), error handling, or response format. This is insufficient for correct agent operation.

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%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds minimal value by grouping parameters under 'text, templates, and media messages', but does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., which combinations are required or mutually exclusive). This is adequate but not above baseline.

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 'Send a WhatsApp message' as the core action, visually distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_sms and send_email. It explicitly lists supported message types (text, templates, media), which fully defines the tool's scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_whatsapp_templates or list_templates. The description does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for choosing text/template/media, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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