send_template_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It adds the behavioral constraint that templates must be pre-approved. However, it does not disclose other traits such as delivery behavior, errors, or side effects beyond sending. This is arguably minimal viable transparency, but not rich enough for a score above 3.

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 sentence, 18 words, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning; there is no wasted phrasing. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 sending tool with moderate complexity, the description covers the essential context: what it sends, via which channel, and the prerequisite of approval. There is no output schema, but the absence of return-value documentation is not a significant gap given the straightforward nature of the tool. It is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description itself does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Send' with a clear resource 'pre-approved template message via WhatsApp'. It distinguishes from sibling send tools like send_text_message and send_image_message by emphasizing 'template' and 'pre-approved'. The requirement of creation/approval adds further 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 gives clear context: templates must be created and approved before sending, implying use of template management tools first. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisite is a strong usage signal. This qualifies as clear context without exclusions.

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