waha_send_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions sending a file but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a mutation (likely yes, as it sends data), authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external services.

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 ('Send a document/file to a WhatsApp chat') and adds a clarifying detail ('from local file OR URL') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (sending files to WhatsApp with 7 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation in a real-world scenario.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying support for local files and URLs, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what's in the 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 clearly states the action ('send') and resource ('document/file to a WhatsApp chat'), specifying it can use local files or URLs. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'waha_send_image' or 'waha_send_video' that also send media files to WhatsApp chats, missing explicit differentiation.

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 such as 'waha_send_image' for images or 'waha_send_video' for videos. It mentions the source options (local file or URL) but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases compared to siblings.

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