waha_set_typing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: not whether the indicator auto-expires, whether calls are idempotent, whether an inactive session or nonexistent chat errors out, or whether there are rate limits. It effectively restates the function name, which is a significant gap for a state-mutating call on a messaging platform.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing of complete 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description leaves the agent without session requirements, chat_id format, or side-effect behavior. For a three-parameter tool requiring a live session, this is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only implicitly covers the 'typing' boolean via 'show or hide'; 'session' and 'chat_id' remain undefined, notably the required chat identifier format (e.g. WhatsApp JID). With three parameters and no schema documentation, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 state change (show/hide) on a specific resource (the 'typing...' indicator) in a chat, which separates it cleanly from siblings like waha_send_text or waha_mark_chat_read. It stops short of stating scope, e.g. that it acts on an existing session, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus simply sending a message, whether a typing indicator must precede waha_send_text, or whether an active session is a prerequisite. The agent must infer all triggering conditions from the name alone.

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