send_whatsapp_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention prerequisites like an active session, the requirement that the URL be publicly accessible, or potential failure modes. The operation 'send' implies side effects, but the description gives no further insight into execution context or consequences.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It names the tool's action and object, plus the media types, without wasting words or including extraneous detail.

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?

Despite a rich input schema, the description omits critical operational context: it does not mention that a WhatsApp session must exist, that the URL must be publicly accessible, or what the tool returns. There is no output schema, so the agent has no idea about success/failure indicators. For a tool with several optional parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not clarify any additional semantics like how the media type affects the URL handling.

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 action (send) and resource (media message), and lists the supported media types (image, video, audio, or document), which distinguishes it from the sibling send_whatsapp_text. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies this tool is for sending media, as opposed to text messages, and lists the media types. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to send_whatsapp_text as the alternative, so it stops short of a full 5.

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