create_scheduled_message

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation requiring confirmation, that it fails without session_id, and explains the two-step confirmation process. However, it does not mention response details after successful scheduling (e.g., returns scheduled message ID) or idempotency.

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 front-loaded with purpose, uses clear section headers for prerequisite and flow, and is generally efficient. It is slightly verbose but still concise for the complexity involved.

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?

Covers the prerequisite and confirmation flow well, but lacks details on the output when confirm=true (e.g., success response fields, scheduled message ID) and how to reference the scheduled message later for update/cancel. Given no output schema, this gap is notable.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds limited value beyond schema, mainly reinforcing the prerequisite for session_id and the confirm parameter role. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it schedules a WhatsApp message for future sending, distinguishing from immediate sending tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related scheduling tools like update_scheduled_message, though the prerequisite and confirmation flow set it apart.

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?

Provides explicit mandatory prerequisite (call get_whatsapp_status) and detailed confirmation flow: first call returns requires_confirmation=true, then describe to user and stop; do not call again until confirm=true. This offers excellent when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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