Send WhatsApp template

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully notes that the template must be approved and that this can initiate a conversation outside the 24-hour window, but it does not mention side effects, delivery semantics, or failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the unique policy detail is stated immediately after.

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 straightforward send action, the description plus the fully documented schema is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around requiring an existing templateId and matching variable counts, but 'approved' and the schema mitigate this.

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 100% and the parameters are already well documented. The description only reinforces that variables accompany the template and does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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') and resource ('approved WhatsApp template with variables'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gambot_send_text. The added note about the 24-hour window further pinpoints the tool's unique purpose.

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 gives a clear use context: sending templates, including outside the 24-hour customer-service window. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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