whatsapp_set_browser_policy

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions 'persists default' without disclosing if the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or has side effects. It does not describe what happens to existing policies on reset.

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?

The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with key action, but it is cryptic and in Portuguese, which may hinder understanding. It could be better structured with parameter details.

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?

Given no annotations, 5 parameters with no schema descriptions, and an output schema that is not referenced, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to cover return values, parameter details, or behavioral traits.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at parameters (global, category, process) but does not clarify valid values for 'browser_mode' or 'login_mode', nor does it explain the 'reset' parameter beyond its name.

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 that the tool persists a default browser mode (headless/headed) at global, category, or process level. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'whatsapp_browser_policy', which likely reads the policy.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'whatsapp_browser_policy' (likely a read operation). There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use cues.

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