waha_send_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action without detailing side effects, delivery confirmations, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens if the chatId is invalid. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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 wastes no words. It is concise and to the point, though it might be considered too sparse for some users. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple send action.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about prerequisites, return values, or error handling. It does not. The tool is simple (3 params), but the description is too shallow to be considered complete, leaving the agent without crucial guidance on invocation edge cases.

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 100%, with each parameter already described (chatId, text, replyTo). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies. No additional parameter meaning is provided in the description.

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 'Send a text message to a WhatsApp chat' clearly identifies the verb (send), the resource (a text message to a WhatsApp chat), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like waha_send_image and waha_send_file by specifying 'text'. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It does not mention chat state requirements, authentication, or scenarios where other send tools would be appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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