waha_send_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions 'via URL' without disclosing that the file is fetched from the URL, potential size limits, URL accessibility requirements, or any side effects. For a write operation, this is insufficient.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the simple purpose it conveys.

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 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., URL accessibility), return value expectations, or error handling, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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 60%, covering url, filename, and mimetype. The description adds only 'via URL' to clarify the url parameter. It does not explain chatId format or caption usage, leaving gaps that the description should compensate for.

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'), the resource ('a file/document'), and the channel ('WhatsApp chat via URL'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like waha_send_text and waha_send_image by specifying 'file/document' and 'via 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 purpose implies usage: use this to send a file via URL. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives mentioned, and no exclusions for image-specific tools. The intent is clear from the description alone.

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