Send a WhatsApp location

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds that it sends a 'map pin to a chat' and that labels are optional, but it does not disclose side effects such as the message appearing in history or possible failure behavior. Given the annotation coverage, what is added is modest but acceptable for a simple send operation.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and free of redundancy. It communicates the resource ('map pin'), the destination ('chat'), and the optional precision ('optionally labelled') efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does not explain return values or errors, but for a simple action like sending a location pin this is less critical. All required operational parameters are documented in the schema, and the description covers the essence of what the tool does. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer what happens after a successful send.

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 the schema already documents every parameter in detail. The description adds the idea that name and address are optional ('optionally labelled'), which is useful but also inferable from the required fields list. The value added beyond the schema is minimal, which fits the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Send a map pin to a chat'. It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from other send family tools through the 'map pin' concept. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies a use case (sharing a location as a map pin) but gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over send_media or send_message, nor when not to use it. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual cues beyond the basic purpose.

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