Send Template to Contact

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description is free to add genuinely new context: the 24-hour-window bypass and the external Meta Business Manager approval prerequisite. It does not describe delivery/failure behavior, but the key gating constraint is disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and constraints following. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, an agent still lacks return-value detail, but the description covers prerequisites and channel constraints adequate for invoking the tool correctly. Coverage of failure modes (rejected template, unapproved name) is the only real gap.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail for template_name, language_code, or components beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Send a pre-approved WhatsApp template to a contact.' Clear on its own, but does not differentiate from close siblings like sendpulse_send_template_by_phone or sendpulse_send_template_campaign, which an agent must distinguish by name alone.

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?

'Works outside the 24-hour window' is a concrete usage condition that implicitly selects this tool over sendpulse_send_message for out-of-window outreach, and the Meta approval requirement is stated. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when-not to use it.

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