send_button_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the WhatsApp Business API context but lacks critical behavioral details: authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, whether messages are queued or sent immediately, or what happens if buttons exceed the max. The description doesn't compensate for the missing annotations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('send', 'interactive button message', 'WhatsApp Business API') earns its place by defining scope and differentiation.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the response format, error handling, or operational constraints. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context about behavior and outcomes is needed.

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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples, format details, or constraints explanation). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('interactive button message'), and the platform ('via WhatsApp Business API'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like send_text_message or send_template_message by specifying the button-based interaction type.

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 button messages on WhatsApp, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like send_list_message or send_template_message. No prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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