whatsapp_send_sticker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It only states 'send' implying mutation, but fails to disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 (two sentences) with no redundancy. It is efficient but under-informative for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 9 parameters with limited descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on animated stickers, reply behavior, and error handling, failing to fully equip an AI agent for correct invocation.

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?

With only 44% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions 'data' and 'url' as alternatives. It adds no meaning for parameters like isAnimated, mentions, replyTo, or ephemeralExpiration, leaving most parameters semantically barren.

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 explicitly states 'Send a sticker message (WebP format)', clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like whatsapp_send_image by specifying the WebP format requirement.

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 mentions 'Provide either data (base64) or url', giving a basic usage hint. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, relying on implied context.

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