whatsapp_send_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states to provide data or url, but does not mention what happens if both are supplied, file size limits, supported formats, or potential errors. The 'auto-detected if omitted' note for mimeType is in the schema, not description.

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 very short (one sentence) and to the point, but it lacks necessary detail. It is not wasteful, but it is under-specified for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or how to use optional parameters. Essential context for agent usage is missing.

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 50%, meaning 5 parameters lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema. It mentions 'data' and 'url' but does not clarify their meaning or constraints. The description fails to compensate for missing 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 and resource: 'Send an audio file message.' It also notes the two ways to provide the audio (data or url), which differentiates it from other send tools like send_image or send_document. However, it could be more explicit about context (e.g., in a WhatsApp chat).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_voice (which might be for voice notes). There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.

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