waha_send_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral information. It mentions the two input methods (URL or base64) but doesn't disclose important behaviors like: whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation, what happens if the audio file is too large, whether there are rate limits, what permissions are required, or what the typical response looks like. 'Send' implies a write operation, but no safety warnings or side effects are described.

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?

Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds technical detail about input methods. However, it could be more front-loaded by mentioning the exclusive choice between fileUrl and fileData upfront.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after sending (success/failure indicators), doesn't mention authentication requirements, doesn't warn about potential side effects (like message delivery notifications), and provides no context about WhatsApp-specific constraints. The description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions URL or base64 options (implied by fileUrl/fileData parameters) and specifies 'audio/voice messages' (implied by mimetype). No additional semantic context about parameter relationships or usage patterns is provided.

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 action ('Send audio/voice messages') and target ('to a WhatsApp chat'), with specific media type mentioned. It distinguishes from generic 'send_media' by focusing on audio, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other messaging tools like 'send_message'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_media' or 'send_message'. The description mentions support for URL or base64 data, but this is technical implementation detail rather than usage context. No mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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