wa_phone_update_profile

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. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens to existing profile data, whether changes are reversible, or what the typical response looks like. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic 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 extremely concise at just four words, which is efficient for a simple action. However, it's arguably too brief given the complexity of the operation (updating a profile with three parameters, one of which is completely undocumented). Every word earns its place, but more context would be helpful.

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 mutation tool with three parameters (one completely undocumented as 'body'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what profile fields can be updated, what the 'body' parameter should contain, what permissions are required, or what the operation returns. The agent has insufficient information to use this tool correctly.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'phone number profile' but doesn't explain what the three parameters (wabaId, phoneNumber, body) represent or how they're used. The 'body' parameter is particularly opaque with no type specification. The description adds almost no semantic value beyond what's inferred from the tool name.

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 'Update a phone number profile' clearly states the action (update) and resource (phone number profile), but it's vague about what specific aspects of the profile are updated. It distinguishes from siblings like wa_phone_retrieve_profile (retrieve) and wa_phone_update_commerce_settings (update commerce settings), but doesn't specify what distinguishes it from wa_phone_register or other update operations.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from similar tools like wa_phone_register or wa_phone_update_commerce_settings. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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