Send WhatsApp poll

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

The annotations already flag the tool as destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent, and the description adds important context beyond that: vote results arrive via webhook, unsolicited messages risk bans, and sends should not be retried blindly after timeouts. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure needed for a risky send operation.

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 front-loaded with purpose and vote-delivery behavior, then moves into usage constraints and safety warnings. It is somewhat dense with warnings, but each sentence carries relevant operational meaning for a destructive WhatsApp send tool.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly explains that votes arrive later via the webhook and not in this response. Combined with the schema and annotations, it gives the agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly and avoid common failure modes.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds useful single-choice versus multiple-choice meaning for selectable_count, but does not add much beyond the schema for the other parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it sends a native WhatsApp poll. It also distinguishes the tool's behavior by noting that votes arrive later through the webhook rather than in the send response.

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?

It gives clear usage context for quick surveys and choices, and explicitly warns against bulk or unsolicited messages. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like send_buttons, but the when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance is otherwise strong.

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