send_whatsapp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether sending is synchronous, requires pre-approved templates, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The agent has no indication of side effects beyond the generic 'send' action.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is efficient and free of fluff, though it could benefit from a brief usage note. The brevity is appropriate but leaves out important context, so it is not a perfect score.

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, no annotations, and nested parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain when to use WhatsApp instead of other channels, what constitutes valid content, or any operational constraints. The presence of multiple sibling send tools makes this incompleteness more consequential.

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 input schema describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional detail about parameter formats, defaults, or relationships; it merely restates the overall purpose without enriching the schema information.

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 action (send), the resource (WhatsApp message), and the target (specific users via CleverTap). It distinguishes itself from sibling send tools like send_email and send_sms by explicitly naming WhatsApp, so an agent can identify the correct tool without ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_email or send_sms. There is no mention of prerequisites, message templates, or context in which WhatsApp is preferred. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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