whatsapp_send_poll

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that everyone in the chat sees the poll, which is a minimal behavioral trait. It does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, connection requirements, or error behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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, concise sentence with no wordiness. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is under-specified, lacking essential information. Given the conciseness dimension focuses on economy of expression rather than completeness, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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?

The tool is not simple; sending a poll requires multiple pieces of information and likely has prerequisites, such as an active WhatsApp connection. The schema is empty and there is no output schema or annotations. The description does not cover prerequisites, how to indicate the target chat, poll options, or failure scenarios, making it incomplete for safe and correct 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?

The input schema has no properties, so there are no formal parameters. The description does not explain how to specify the poll question, options, or target chat/group. Since the tool logically requires such details, the absence of any parameter guidance is a major deficiency. The baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description fails to clarify that the tool relies on natural language context or another mechanism, so it drops to 2.

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 function: sending a poll to a WhatsApp chat/group, and adds a specific behavioral detail that everyone in the chat sees it. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like whatsapp_send_message and whatsapp_send_file by focusing on the 'poll' object type.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whatsapp_send_message. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., WhatsApp connection), target selection, or exclusions. The only implied usage is for sending polls, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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