create_group

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: the paired user becomes admin, listed participants receive a system message, and the return format (JSON with jid and info). It also notes reversibility, adding context that annotations do not cover. No contradiction with 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 concise, consisting of three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then add side effects, reversibility, and return format. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main functionality, effects, and reversibility. It details the return value despite no output schema. It lacks mention of prerequisites or error handling, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is adequately complete.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond stating 'given name and initial participants', which paraphrases the schema. It does not provide additional constraints or examples.

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 tool creates a new WhatsApp group with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the effects (paired user becomes admin, participants receive a system message) and reversibility via leave_group or update_group_participants.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (creating a group) and explicitly mentions how to reverse the action using sibling tools (leave_group, update_group_participants). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the purpose is well-defined, making usage guidelines adequate.

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