mcp-whatsapp

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (irreversible action) and readOnlyHint=false (mutation), but the description adds context by specifying it's for WhatsApp groups, which clarifies the platform and resource type. It doesn't detail side effects like group notifications or post-leave access, but provides useful behavioral context 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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the core action. Annotations provide safety cues (destructive), but the description lacks details on outcomes (e.g., confirmation, error cases) or integration with sibling tools, leaving some contextual gaps.

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%, with the chat_jid parameter fully documented in the schema (including format examples). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without extra value.

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 'Leave a WhatsApp group' clearly states the specific action (leave) and resource (WhatsApp group). It distinguishes from siblings like 'join_group_with_link' (joining) and 'update_group_participants' (modifying participants), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be a group member), exclusions (e.g., cannot leave if you're the only admin), or related tools like 'update_group_participants' for removing others, leaving usage context implied at best.

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