neuron_approve_via_whatsapp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the full workflow: taking a screenshot, sending it with a prompt, and waiting for an approve/reject reply. It also surfaces authentication and recipient requirements. It stops short of describing timeout/failure behavior or the exact return value, which keeps this from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the distinguishing usage guidance and prerequisites. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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?

The description covers the main flow and prerequisites well, but there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns (e.g., approve vs. reject, timeout signal). It also does not describe failure behavior when no reply arrives. For a blocking tool with six parameters and no annotations, this is a meaningful gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by connecting the parameters to the workflow: the screenshot of the current state goes with the prompt to the WhatsApp number, and both api_key and phone are required. This helps an agent understand how the parameters interact beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send an approval request to WhatsApp and wait for the response.' It then details the mechanism (screenshot, send prompt, wait for approve/reject), which clearly separates it from the many sibling tools. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 says to use this 'instead of pausing for keyboard approval — the user approves from their phone.' It also states the prerequisites (API key and recipient phone number). It gives clear context but does not formally list when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tools beyond the keyboard-pause pattern.

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