whatsapp_send_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as response format, failure handling, permission requirements, or whether the call is synchronous. The description is too sparse to satisfy transparency needs.

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 sentence with no filler, but it is overly brief given the tool's complexity. While concise, it sacrifices necessary 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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on required vs optional parameters, error behavior, rate limits, and integration context with sibling tools like whatsapp_upload_media.

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 description adds no extra meaning beyond the input schema. It simply restates media types already in the enum. It does not explain mutual exclusivity of media_id and media_link or provide additional context for any of the 8 parameters.

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 verb 'send' and the resource 'media message', listing the supported media types. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like whatsapp_send_text and whatsapp_send_template.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., upload first for media_id, or compare with send_text). Prerequisites like uploading media are not mentioned, leaving ambiguity between media_id and media_link usage.

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