Exchange Meta code (connect WhatsApp)

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the actions (registers, subscribes) but omits critical details such as whether the operation is destructive, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens on failure. There is no mention of rate limits, idempotency, or side effects beyond the stated registration steps, leaving the agent without safety context.

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, two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. It avoids unnecessary words and efficiently communicates the core purpose and subsequent steps. This is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage), the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe return values, error conditions, parameter interactions, or the overall flow beyond the exchange step. An agent would struggle to understand required inputs (besides code) and expected outcomes, making this inadequate for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is only 17% (only 'code' is described). The description explains the 'code' parameter implicitly by referencing the authorization code, but it does not clarify the meaning or role of the other five parameters: wabaId, isCoexisting, organization, phoneNumberId, and coexistingPhoneNumber. With such low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving most parameters undefined and the tool hard to call correctly.

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 states a clear, specific action: exchanging the Meta authorization code from the Facebook popup to complete embedded signup, then explicitly lists the subsequent effects (registers WABA, subscribes webhooks, registers phone number). This verb+resource is distinct from sibling tools like gambot_get_waba_connect_link, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is used after obtaining the authorization code from the Facebook popup, but it does not explicitly mention prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it. It lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over others, though the context of 'authorization code returned by the Facebook popup' gives a clear trigger condition.

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