send_whatsapp_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action without noting requirements like session existence, message delivery semantics, or error conditions. This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 action. There is no redundant or extraneous wording.

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's simplicity and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke it. However, the absence of any behavioral or usage context, such as the optional sessionId handling or what happens on failure, means it is not fully complete for a production scenario.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions, and the tool description does not add any param-specific meaning beyond the schema. Per the rubric, full schema coverage sets a baseline of 3, which is where this sits.

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 uses the specific verb 'send' and identifies the resource as a 'plain text WhatsApp message', clearly distinguishing from sibling send_whatsapp_media. It states the recipient as the target, making the purpose 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 phrase 'plain text' implies text-only messages and implicitly contrasts with the sibling send_whatsapp_media, providing context on scope. However, it does not explicitly state when to use session-related tools or mention exclusions, so it falls 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.