mcp-whatsapp

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (creation is a write operation) and idempotentHint=false (likely creates new groups each time). The description adds value by specifying 'initial participants' (implying group membership setup) and context about WhatsApp JID formats, though it doesn't detail rate limits or auth requirements beyond annotations.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a new WhatsApp group') and includes essential details without redundancy. Every word contributes to clarity, with no wasted text.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and parameters. Annotations provide behavioral context (destructive, non-idempotent), but the description could add more on return values or error cases, though it's sufficient given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'name and initial participants' but doesn't add semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format constraints or usage examples), meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Create a new WhatsApp group') and resources involved ('with the given name and initial participants'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_group_name (which modifies existing groups) or join_group_with_link (which joins existing groups).

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?

The description implies usage context (creating new groups with specific attributes) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. set_group_name for existing groups) or mention alternatives like join_group_with_link. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit exclusions.

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