whatsapp_post_video_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds behavioral constraint (either data or URL required) beyond the schema's optional parameters, but does not disclose other behaviors (e.g., side effects, permissions, or limitations for video status). The added constraint is useful but incomplete.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. Every part contributes directly to understanding the tool's core purpose and constraint.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is partially complete. It explains the data/url constraint but omits context about the status feature (e.g., expiry, visibility), the role of mimeType and caption, and the return value. This may leave an agent unsure about optional parameters and overall behavior.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that data and url are alternatives and that data should be base64-encoded. This semantic link between parameters is helpful for correct invocation.

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 tool posts a video status update, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from similar tools like whatsapp_post_image_status and whatsapp_post_text_status by specifying video, and the name includes 'status' to differentiate from send_video. However, it does not explicitly contrast with send_video or explain the status context.

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 a usage condition ('Provide either data (base64) or url') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like whatsapp_send_video or other status posting tools. It lacks context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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