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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context beyond that: the blast radius ('All agents using it lose access'), the required scope ('Requires whatsapp_agents:write'), and retry semantics ('Reuse the idempotencyKey on retry'). These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking an irreversible deletion.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its confirmation gate front-loaded before the impact and auth details. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the annotations plus description together cover destructiveness, blast radius, auth scope, and idempotent retry. Nothing needed to call this safely is missing.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema itself documents both 'confirmed' and 'idempotencyKey', so the description's retry note largely restates structured data. The 'id' parameter remains undocumented in both places, so modest compensation is warranted but no more than the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a WhatsApp tool from the organization library'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like save_whatsapp_tool and list_whatsapp_tools. An agent can identify the operation without reading the schema.

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 establishes a clear precondition ('after explicit confirmation'), which is real usage guidance for a destructive tool. It does not name alternatives or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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