waha_send_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (sending an image) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, blocking behavior, or return values. This is a mutation tool with minimal transparency, similar to the update_drive example.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and input method. It contains zero waste and is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally sufficient. It clearly states the action and primary input methods, but does not address what the agent should expect as a response or any prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks depth for a complete 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?

The schema description coverage is high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it only mirrors the 'url OR base64' distinction already present in parameter descriptions. Thus, the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and a clear resource ('an image to a WhatsApp chat'), which perfectly distinguishes this tool from siblings like waha_send_text and waha_send_file. The scope is explicit and concise.

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 phrase 'via URL or base64' implies the primary usage scenarios, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over waha_send_file or provide exclusion criteria. There is no mention of alternatives, so guidance is only implied.

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