Edit WhatsApp template status

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

The openWorldHint annotation is present, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not explain side effects, reversibility, or what 'edit status' implies for the WABA review process. The description merely restates the action without illuminating 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 short sentence with no filler, making it very concise. While it is technically efficient, the brevity borders on under-specification, but it earns credit for absolute lack of verbosity.

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?

The tool has a nested 'body' parameter, requires an id, and has no output schema, so the description must explain the expected payload and workflow. It does not. The agent lacks information about valid status values, review semantics, or response behavior, making the description critically incomplete.

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 0%, and the description gives no explanation of the 'id' or 'body' parameters. The agent cannot infer what the body object should contain (e.g., status value, review action) or what the id references, making correct invocation nearly impossible.

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 'Edit' and names the resource 'WABA template review/status,' which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like kommo_templates_update that likely handle content editing. However, the phrase 'review/status' is ambiguous—it could mean either review or status, or both—so it is not fully specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kommo_templates_update or kommo_templates_waba_submit. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.

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