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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does disclose the critical behavior: 'Nothing changes,' which signals a non-destructive preview. It also indicates the return focus, the account that would be disconnected, though it does not cover auth requirements or error behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: what is shown, that nothing changes, and when to call it. Every fragment adds useful information with no waste.

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 simple single-parameter preview tool with no output schema, the description covers the key non-mutating behavior and return intent. However, because there are no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, the undocumented account_id semantics leave a meaningful gap.

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?

The schema has one required account_id parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate for the missing semantics. It implies an account is being identified but never names account_id, explains its format, or says where to obtain it.

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: showing the WhatsApp account that would be disconnected. It also makes the preview semantics explicit with 'would be disconnected' and 'Nothing changes,' distinguishing it from the actual disconnect sibling.

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?

'Call first' gives a clear ordering guideline for using this before disconnecting. It does not explicitly name the disconnect_whatsapp_account alternative or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended usage context is clear.

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