send_image_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., prior media upload), what happens if both image_id and image_link are provided, or the response format. For a send operation, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the primary action and then provides the key parameter guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 tool is relatively simple with all parameters documented in the schema, and the description covers the core either/or constraint. However, it lacks details that would make it fully self-contained: no mention of what both parameters being provided causes, no expected response, and no caveats about image_link accessibility. Given no annotations, these gaps leave the description at a minimum viable level.

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 already describes all parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds an important semantic constraint: the need to provide either image_id or image_link. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying the mutual exclusivity and the source of the image, adding value over the structured fields.

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 an image message via WhatsApp') and specifies the resource (image message), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_text_message and send_template_message. It also mentions the two input modes, adding useful 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?

The description provides clear context on how to specify the image ('Provide either an image_id... or image_link...'), which is a practical usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., for text or template messages), though the tool name and context make the intended use reasonably clear.

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