whatsapp_send_link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and optional preview, omitting side effects, required permissions, or limitations (e.g., does the preview generate automatically?). This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the action, but the brevity results in under-specification. A bit more structure (e.g., listing key optional features) would improve it.

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 11 parameters (many optional) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain message behavior like mentions, reply chain, forwarding, or ephemeral settings. For a tool with this complexity, more context is needed.

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?

The input schema already describes most parameters (55% coverage). The description hints at preview-related parameters ('optional preview') but adds no new insight beyond the schema. For parameters like mentions, replyTo, etc., no extra context is provided.

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 ('Send a link message') and mentions the optional preview feature, distinguishing it from other send tools like whatsapp_send_text or whatsapp_send_image. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes a link message versus sending a plain text with a URL.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling send tools (e.g., whatsapp_send_text, whatsapp_send_image), explicit context about when to choose send_link would be beneficial.

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