whatsapp_send_location

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=false, so the 'Not idempotent' sentence is largely redundant. The description does add one piece of behavior beyond the structured data — 'Returns the message ID' — which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it omits any note on permissions or delivery behavior for a write operation on an open-world network.

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 declarative sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the required inputs, with no filler. Every sentence contributes something (action, side-effect, return value).

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 simple message-send tool with well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers what to send, the non-idempotency, and the return value. It is nearly sufficient, missing only guidance on session/auth prerequisites.

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 description coverage is 86%, so the schema carries the parameter burden and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces latitude/longitude and the optional name/address but adds no syntax or format detail, and never mentions the url or ephemeralExpiration parameters.

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) and resource (map location) plus the required coordinates, which cleanly separates it from sibling senders like whatsapp_send_text, whatsapp_send_contact, and whatsapp_send_image. An agent can route to it without opening the 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?

The intended use (sharing a location) is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as an active session, and no comparison against near alternatives like sending a location as a link (whatsapp_send_link) or as a contact.

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