submit_template

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the confirmation-before-use requirement, which is real extra context, but omits what submission actually entails (Meta review/approval, irreversibility of an approved template, rate limits, required prior validation).

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded and no filler. The closing phrase 'before use' is slightly ambiguous about what 'use' refers to (submission, sending, or template activation), which costs a point.

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 10-parameter, nested-object, no-output-schema mutation that publishes content to an external platform, the description is far too thin. It should cover the validate-then-submit pattern, name format constraints, variable example requirements, idempotency behaviour, and what a rejection/approval response implies.

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% across 10 parameters, several nested (header, buttons with three variants). The description's only hint is 'flat developer-friendly shape', which explains the overall input convention but documents none of name, body, category, language, variable_examples, or idempotency_key.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Create and submit a WhatsApp template to Meta', plus the qualifier 'from a flat developer-friendly shape'. That is clear and distinctive, but it does not separate itself from close siblings like submit_stored_template or validate_template, which an agent will likely be choosing between.

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 only guidance is 'Ask for confirmation before use', which is an interaction instruction rather than a when-to-use rule. It never says when to prefer this over validate_template, validate_template_draft, or submit_stored_template, nor that validation should precede submission.

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