Send WhatsApp text

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a critical WhatsApp policy constraint—the 24-hour window—and notes the fallback path for out-of-window sends. It does not describe response behavior or delivery semantics, but the core behavioral trait is clearly surfaced.

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, tight sentence with the core action first and the constraint/alternative immediately after. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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 simple send tool with fully documented parametershare, the description covers the main selection logic and behavioral constraint. It omits what the response contains or whether delivery is guaranteed, but those are secondary given the simplicity of the operation and the rich schema.

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 schema already explains `to`, `text`, and `country` in detail, including E.164 formatting and country ambiguity handling. The description adds little parameter-level information beyond calling the message 'free-text', so a 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 states a specific action ('Send a free-text WhatsApp message') and clearly names the resource. It also distinguishes this tool from gambot_send_template by emphasizing 'free-text', so an agent can tell them apart at a glance.

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 an explicit condition for use ('inside the 24-hour customer service window') and names the exact alternative for the opposite case ('use gambot_send_template'). This is direct when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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