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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it states that broadcasts are not delivered until reconnection, that templates/contacts are preserved and re-synced, and it discloses the return value. This fully prepares the agent for the tool's side effects.

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 five sentences each carry distinct, essential information: action, consequence, use case, data retention, reconnection paths, confirmation instruction, and return value. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavioral consequences, data preservation, reconnection options, and return shape. No critical information is missing 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 zero parameters, the schema has nothing to explain. The description appropriately omits parameter details and focuses on behavior. The baseline of 4 applies since there are no parameters to add meaning to.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Disconnect this workspace's WhatsApp number.' It clearly distinguishes from connect_whatsapp and whatsapp_connect_link by stating the opposite action and its effect on broadcast delivery. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 provides explicit use cases ('stop sending from their connected number or re-run signup with a different number') and names the alternatives for reconnection (connect_whatsapp, whatsapp_connect_link). It also includes a safety directive to confirm with the user, making the when-to-use guidance complete.

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