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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags mutating behavior, and the description adds important behavioral context: the acting account must be a group admin. This is meaningful auth-related information beyond what the schema or annotations state.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and identifier formats come first, followed by the admin prerequisite. Every word adds relevant information.

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 destructive mutation tool, the description covers the action, target, accepted identifiers, and required permission. An output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary. It is essentially complete for the agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented with format and provenance (E.164/JID, ...@g.us from wa_list_groups, account from wa_list_accounts). The description mostly restates the members format, adding little semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Remove') and specific resource ('participants from a WhatsApp group'), and explains the two accepted member identifier forms. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wa_add_participants, wa_demote_participants, and wa_delete_group.

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 clearly states when the tool applies: removing members from a WhatsApp group. It also gives a key prerequisite, that the account must be a group admin, which helps the agent decide whether this tool can be used in a given context. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the use case is unambiguous.

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