mcp-whatsapp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning the automatic conversion of non-ogg inputs via ffmpeg. Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write operation, but the description provides specific implementation details about media processing.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, and the second adds important behavioral context about file conversion. No wasted words or 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?

For a destructive write operation with no output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does and how it processes inputs. It could be more complete by mentioning potential limitations (file size, format support) or error conditions, but covers the essential functionality well.

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 schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing 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 clearly states the specific action ('send any audio file as a WhatsApp voice note') and resource ('audio file'), distinguishing it from siblings like send_message, send_file, and send_contact_card by specifying the unique voice note functionality. It also mentions the conversion process for non-ogg inputs.

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 this tool (sending audio as WhatsApp voice notes) but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use send_file instead for non-voice-note audio sharing.

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