mcp-whatsapp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that setting `reset` to true revokes the old link and creates a new one, which clarifies the destructive and non-idempotent aspects hinted at by annotations (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: false). This disclosure helps the agent understand the tool's side effects, though it could mention potential rate limits or auth needs for completeness.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and key usage. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without any waste, making it easy for an agent to parse and apply.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (e.g., destructiveHint: true), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core functionality and behavioral traits, but it could improve by mentioning the return format (e.g., the link as a string) or error conditions, which would enhance completeness for agent use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the parameters (`chat_jid` and `reset`). The description adds minimal semantics by clarifying the effect of `reset` ('revoke the existing link and mint a fresh one'), but this is largely redundant with the schema's description. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 without significantly enhancing parameter understanding.

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 ('Return a group's current invite link') and resource ('group'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_group' or 'join_group_with_link' which involve different operations on groups. It also specifies the optional destructive behavior ('Set `reset` to revoke the existing link and mint a fresh one'), making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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: to retrieve or reset a group's invite link. It implicitly distinguishes this from siblings like 'get_group_info' (which retrieves general group details) or 'create_group' (which creates a new group). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as for non-group chats, which limits it to a 4.

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