waha_send_media

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions support for URL or base64 data but doesn't disclose file size limits, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns message ID). For a media-sending tool, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying media types and input methods concisely.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter filling.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning URL or base64 support, which aligns with fileUrl and fileData parameters but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 media files') and target ('to a WhatsApp chat'), specifying supported media types and input methods. It distinguishes from sibling tools like waha_send_message by focusing on media rather than text, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with waha_send_audio which might overlap in functionality.

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 like waha_send_message or waha_send_audio, nor does it mention prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases. It only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate.

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