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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds value by clarifying the semantic effect of the boolean (true = admin-only, false = everyone posts), which goes beyond the schema's generic 'new value for this setting'. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and immediately explains the parameter semantics. No redundant words or filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 three-parameter toggle tool with a clear output schema, the description covers the functional behavior completely. It explains the effect, the parameter meaning, and leaves nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly. The schema handles parameter descriptions, and the output schema covers the response format.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'enabled' parameter by explaining what true and false do, which is not fully covered by the schema. The other two parameters are adequately documented in the schema as returned by list functions, so no further explanation needed.

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 clearly states the verb (restrict) and the resource (WhatsApp group) with the specific setting (admin-only messages). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wa_set_group_name and wa_set_group_locked by focusing on the announce-only behavior, and explicitly explains the two states of the enabled parameter.

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 implies usage by explaining the enabled parameter's effect, making it clear when to use this tool (to toggle announce-only). It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of sibling tools and the precise wording make the intended use obvious.

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