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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds only the API/auth context ('Partner API'), and says nothing about irreversibility, what data is lost, or whether the phone number/instance channel survives — meaningful gaps for a destructive 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Nothing in it is redundant.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition gives an agent enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is consequence disclosure — nothing states that the instance is permanently removed — but annotations partly backfill that.

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% and both required parameters carry their own descriptions (instance_id, partner_token), so the schema does the work. The description contributes nothing additional about parameter formats or where to source values, which is the expected 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 ('Delete a WhatsApp instance') plus the API surface it targets, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours like whatsapp_disconnect or whatsapp_logout, which an agent could plausibly confuse with deletion.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb — an agent would reach for this to remove an instance permanently — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternatives (disconnect vs logout vs delete) that appear as siblings. The routing decision is left to inference.

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