cigchat_send_whatsapp_template_by_user_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly warns 'Delivers a real message' and states the required 'Manage Flow' scope, which are critical practical implications. However, it omits potential side effects like whether it creates a contact or incurs cost.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by the source for parameters, endpoint, and scope requirement in two sentences. No wasted words.

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 4 params, nested objects, and no annotations/output schema, the description covers the key behavioral warning and auth requirement but leaves gaps in optional parameter semantics and explicit use-case boundaries. It does mention the template list source, which is valuable, but lacks enough guidance for a fully informed agent.

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 description directs readers to the template list endpoint for namespace, name, lang, and params, partially compensating for the schema's low 25% description coverage. It does not explain the contact or create_if_not_found parameters beyond the schema's minimal descriptions. The user_id role is implied by the endpoint.

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 tool sends a WhatsApp template to a subscriber and that it delivers a real message. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling send_whatsapp_template, but the tool name and endpoint URL clarify the by_user_id scope.

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 tells the agent where to find template values (/api/whatapp-template/list) and states the required scope, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like broadcast_whatsapp_template_by_user_id or send_whatsapp_template. The phrase 'to a person' implies singular use but leaves exclusions implicit.

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