send_flow

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, yet the description merely says 'send', which is common for sending actions. No additional behavioral details are provided, such as whether the action is reversible, costs involved, or permission requirements. The description adds minimal value beyond the annotation's destructive hint.

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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core action. It could be slightly improved by including a brief list of required parameters, but it remains clear and non-redundant.

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 has 7 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and a destructive hint, the description is insufficient. It does not mention return values, error handling, the action parameter options (navigate/data_exchange), or the impact of the destructive operation. The hints for related tools are helpful but not enough for full contextual completeness.

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 only 29%, with only cta and screen described. The description does not explain any parameters, despite 5 required ones (wa_id, message, screen, flow_id, cta). It fails to compensate for low schema coverage, leaving an agent unsure about parameter details.

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?

Description clearly states the tool sends an interactive WhatsApp Flow to a contact, distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_message or send_template which send plain messages. It also advises using list_flows and get_flow_screens for discovery, reinforcing the tool's specific role.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to send an interactive flow) and provides helpful guidance to use list_flows and get_flow_screens to obtain necessary IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare directly with alternative message-sending tools beyond the implicit distinction.

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