Send Template Campaign

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

Annotations already declare non-idempotent, readOnly=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact: the send fans out to ALL bot subscribers, making it a mass broadcast rather than a targeted message. It says nothing about rate limits, whether the send is reversible, or account scoping.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence containing verb, resource, recipient scope, and campaign framing with zero filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing 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?

For an 8-parameter, non-idempotent mass-send tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits scheduling semantics (send_at), recipient filtering via filter, template variable/media handling via components, and the single configured account, all of which matter for 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?

With 8 parameters, nested objects, and 88% schema description coverage, the schema already documents title, bot_id, filter, account, send_at, components, language_code, and template_name. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (send), a specific resource (pre-approved WhatsApp template), and a specific scope (all bot subscribers as a campaign). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sendpulse_send_template and sendpulse_send_template_by_phone, which target individual recipients, but it never names those siblings.

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 states what the tool does but not when to choose it over sendpulse_send_campaign, sendpulse_send_message, or the single-recipient template tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no conditions are given; the agent must infer broadcast-vs-single usage from 'all bot subscribers'.

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