send_status

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states 'post' (a mutation) without explaining side effects, reversibility, authorization needs, or rate limits. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

While the description is a single short sentence, it omits critical details about the parameter structure and usage context. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 has a nested statusMessage object and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to cover the structure of the input, the meaning of boolean fields like allContacts, or the expected return. It is not complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 low (only instanceName has a description). The description mentions the three allowed types (text, image, audio) which correspond to the 'type' property, but does not explain other parameters like font, backgroundColor, allContacts vs statusJidList, or content vs caption. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the enum values.

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?

Description clearly states the action (post) and resource (WhatsApp status/story), and lists supported types (text, image, audio). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_media or send_plain_text, which handle normal messages.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as send_media for regular media messages. There is no discussion of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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