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

Beyond annotations that already mark this destructive and idempotent, the description discloses what is preserved ('The wa-mcp account and subscription stay'), how to reverse it, and how it differs from delete_account. This adds meaningful behavioral context about scope, reversibility, and 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 description is front-loaded with the core action and analogy, then moves efficiently through consequences and routing alternatives. Every sentence contributes actionable context without repetition.

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?

Given zero parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: what the tool does, what persists afterward, how to reconnect, and when to choose sibling tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden for the description to carry. A baseline 4 is appropriate because the schema requires nothing further.

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 first sentence states a specific verb ('Unlinks') and resource ('WhatsApp from WA MCP') and clarifies the analogy ('like removing a linked device on the phone'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as delete_account and restart_session.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('only when the user asks to disconnect or unlink') and names alternatives for related scenarios: get_pairing_qr/request_pairing_code to relink, restart_session for stopped messages, and delete_account for full removal. This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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