cigchat_broadcast_whatsapp_template_by_user_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It boldly states 'DANGEROUS: sends to many subscribers at once, costs money and cannot be undone', and explains the confirmation token mechanism. It also discloses the required 'Manage Flow' scope. This is exemplary behavioral transparency for a high-risk tool.

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 three sentences yet packs in the purpose, the template parameter source, the confirmation protocol, the danger warning, and the auth scope. Every sentence earns its place and the most critical information is front-loaded. No redundant phrasing.

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 complex, dangerous action with a nested template object, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It covers the safety-critical confirmation flow, the source for parameter values, and the required scope. The schema handles the rest (scheduling, rate limit, ID format).

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the structured definitions. It tells the agent to source template details from a specific endpoint and clarifies the choice between use_default_values and params. This helps the agent correctly populate the nested wa_template object, which is the most complex part of the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Broadcast whatsapp template by user ids'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling broadcast tools like broadcast_by_segment, broadcast_by_tag, and send_whatsapp_template_by_user_id. The endpoint is also included, reinforcing the exact operation.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent where to find the namespace, name, lang, and params (from /api/whatapp-template/list), and advises using either use_default_values or params for the wa_template. It also provides a precise two-step confirmation workflow (call without confirm, show estimate, re-call with token), which is critical for a dangerous bulk operation.

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