whatsapp_send_audio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description repeats non-idempotency and adds the useful return value (message ID), but does not disclose additional behavioral context such as permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on failure. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the sibling alternative. The final two sentences about idempotency and return value are compact, though 'Not idempotent' is redundant with the annotation; every sentence still earns its place efficiently.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative tool, idempotency, and return value. However, it leaves most parameters unexplained and omits operational details like authentication or rate limits, so an agent still has gaps when invoking non-trivial options.

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 only 50%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions base64 data and public URL, but those two parameters already have matching descriptions in the schema, and the remaining eight parameters (e.g., replyTo, mentions, mimeType, viewOnce, ephemeralExpiration) are neither explained nor clarified. The description adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 (Send), resource (an audio file), and attachment mode (regular audio attachment). It distinguishes the tool from its sibling whatsapp_send_voice by naming the alternative explicitly, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition for selecting it: for a voice note that plays like a recorded message, use whatsapp_send_voice. It also clarifies the two source options (base64 data or public URL), leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

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