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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that — transcription runs on SautiKit's own SIP media leg rather than Meta's native path, which is Cloud/WebRTC-only — but stops short of saying whether the toggle affects in-progress calls or only future ones, and whether it incurs cost.

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 sentences, zero filler: the action and scope come first, and the implementation note follows as supporting detail. Nothing is repeated from the name or title.

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 two-required-parameter toggle with a fully described schema, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is prerequisites and effect timing, which matter for calling an activation toggle correctly but are secondary to the clear action statement.

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 enabled and number_id fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely reinforces that number_id scopes the toggle to one number's calls; it adds no meaning beyond the schema for enabled or the purpose field.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: turning transcription of a given number's WhatsApp calls on or off, with the toggle semantics stated up front. It also implicitly separates this from the recording toggle via 'Like recording', so an agent can tell the two apart, though it never names set_whatsapp_recording outright as the alternative.

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 only implied by the on/off framing; there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus update_whatsapp_call_settings or set_whatsapp_recording, and no stated prerequisites such as WhatsApp calling needing to be provisioned on the number. The agent can infer intent but must consult other tools to know the conditions.

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