whatsapp_send_reaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral info (emoji reaction, empty string removal) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or idempotency. The context is basic but non-contradictory.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or fluff.

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's simplicity (4 params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core behavior but lacks details on error handling, prerequisites, or return values. Could be more helpful.

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% (all four parameters have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already describes messageId, to, senderId, and reaction. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Send a reaction (emoji) to a message' and 'Send empty string to remove reaction', specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like send_text or send_image by focusing specifically on reactions.

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 implies usage by mentioning removal via empty string, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., star_message, send_text). No when-not or alternative comparison is provided.

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