Send Interactive Buttons

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only, open-world operation, and the description does not contradict that. It adds the return value ('Message ID and delivery status') and the 'up to 3' limit, but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior, so it provides only baseline transparency.

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 compact and clearly organized with an Args list and Returns line. Every sentence provides useful information, and the example JSON for buttons is immediately helpful without bloating the text.

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 a messaging tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, core parameters, and the return value. It lacks usage context and omits response_format from the Args list, but the schema fills most gaps, so the description remains adequate.

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 documents 100% of parameters with descriptions and examples. The description repeats 'to', 'body_text', 'buttons', 'header_text', and 'footer_text' but does not add new meaning, and notably omits the response_format parameter that appears in the schema.

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 opening sentence 'Send a message with up to 3 reply buttons' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling send tools (text, image, list, etc.) by focusing on the interactive button format.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like whatsapp_send_text or whatsapp_send_list. It only restates the tool's purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage from the action name.

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