Disable Auto-Reply Transcription

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the return fields (status, phone, enabled: false). However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects or prerequisites.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary and well-organized.

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?

With a single parameter fully documented in the schema, annotations present, and no output schema needed, the description is complete. It explains the tool's action, input format, and output structure.

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 a description and pattern for the phone parameter. The description adds an example and format clarification ('digits only, no @, no spaces'), but this largely overlaps with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Disable' and the resource 'auto-reply with audio transcription', along with the scope 'for a contact'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like whatsapp_auto_reply_enable and whatsapp_auto_reply_list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use it or references to enable/list siblings. The usage is only implicitly understood from the name.

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