cigchat_send_whatsapp_template

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that this 'Delivers a real message to a person', which is a critical side-effect for an agent to know, and states the required 'Manage Flow' scope, providing auth context. It does not detail failure modes or return values, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed effectively.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It packs useful information (parameter source, real-message warning, required scope) into three short sentences without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient for an agent to parse.

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 moderate complexity (nested object, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description provides essential context: where to get template details, that it sends a real message, and the required scope. However, it leaves gaps such as the meaning of user_ns, expected behavior on failure, and what the response contains. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to execute without some guesswork.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level parameters, and the description partially compensates by directing the user to find 'namespace, name, lang, params' from an external API list. This adds meaning about where to source parameter values, but it does not explain the semantics of 'user_ns' or how the 'content' object maps to a template. The nested structure is not elaborated, so the agent still needs to infer some meanings from names.

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 Whatsapp Template to subscriber') with a specific verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'cigchat_send_whatsapp_template_by_user_id', which likely targets a subscriber via a different identifier. The inclusion of the endpoint path adds specificity but not sibling 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 implies when to use the tool (to send a WhatsApp template to a subscriber) and provides some context on how to find template parameters (from an external list endpoint). It also warns that this delivers a real message and requires the 'Manage Flow' scope, which helps the agent understand prerequisites. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like broadcast or by_user_id variants, and does not state exclusions.

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