send_video_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Send') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success. For a tool that interacts with an external API to send messages, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and gets directly to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.

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 that sends messages via an external API with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of API interactions and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more operational context.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects that the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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') and resource ('video message via WhatsApp Business API'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'send_text_message' by specifying the media type, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other media-sending tools like 'send_audio_message' or 'send_image_message' beyond the obvious video vs. audio/image distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for sending different message types (text, audio, image, document, template, etc.), there's no indication of when a video message is appropriate versus other media types or text messages. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparative context is mentioned.

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