send_template

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: variable support (with guidance to use get_template_fields), attachment by URL, and optional from_id depending on environment variable. This exceeds what annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds distinct value: purpose first, then variable and attachment details. No redundant or superfluous text.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key aspects (template, recipients, variables, attachments) but omits explanation of fields like agent_id, file_name, chatbot_status, conversation_status, and contact_type. The description is adequate but has clear gaps for full autonomous use.

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 about 58% (7/12 parameters have descriptions). The description adds semantic value for body_vars, header_var, cta_var (referencing get_template_fields), url_file, and from_id. However, other parameters like agent_id, file_name, and enum fields lack additional explanation beyond schema definitions.

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 verb ('Envía'), resource ('una plantilla aprobada de WhatsApp'), and target ('uno o más destinatarios'). It differentiates from sibling send tools by specifying template-based sending with variable and attachment support.

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 usage for sending approved templates to multiple recipients with variables/attachments, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like send_message or send_attachment, nor when not to use this tool.

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