whatsapp_reply_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Reply quoting a message' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose security requirements (e.g., active session), rate limits, or what happens on failure. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the core action.

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 very concise (one sentence plus parameter hints). It front-loads the purpose and then lists parameter specifications efficiently. No unnecessary words, though it could be structured as a clearer list.

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 low tool complexity (3 required params, simple action) and existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not exhaustive. It misses context like prerequisites (e.g., must be connected) and return value description, but the output schema may compensate.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains each parameter: 'phone: no '+', message: reply text, quoted_message_id: original msg ID.' This adds value beyond schema names, but could be more detailed on format and constraints (e.g., phone format, message length).

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's action: 'Reply quoting a message.' It distinguishes from similar tools like whatsapp_send_text by specifying quoting behavior. However, it could be more explicit about how it differs from other messaging tools.

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 format hints (phone no '+') and explains each parameter, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., whatsapp_send_text). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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