sync_whatsapp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does notable work: it discloses read-only access to ChatStorage.sqlite, the WHATSAPP_DB_PATH override, the iPhone-backup case, and exactly which content is retained versus dropped. It omits dedup/repeat-sync behavior and any auth or rate-limit notes, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the data source, then the retention rule. Every clause carries information, though the kept/dropped enumeration is slightly verbose for a 0-param tool.

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 parameterless sync tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers source selection and retention policy well. It stops short of saying where synced chats land or how repeat runs behave, which would complete the picture.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface to document; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description usefully explains the implicit input (WHATSAPP_DB_PATH or the default Mac database) even though no schema field exists for 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?

States a specific verb and resource (sync WhatsApp chats) and pins the source precisely: WhatsApp for Mac's database on this machine. Among a large family of sync_* and import_* siblings, naming the exact source distinguishes it clearly.

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 implied by the source-specific phrasing, but the description never states when to pick this over siblings like import_messenger or sync_imessage, nor any prerequisites such as WhatsApp for Mac being installed or an iPhone backup existing. Adequate but leaves the when-to-use decision to inference.

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