mcp-whatsapp

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that replies quote previous messages, which isn't covered by annotations. Annotations already indicate destructive (true), non-idempotent (false), and open-world (true) behavior, so the description appropriately supplements rather than contradicts them, earning a good score.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 destructive annotations (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint true) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's action but doesn't address potential side effects like message delivery confirmation or error handling. It's sufficient for basic understanding but could be more comprehensive for a mutation tool.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details beyond implying 'target_message_id' is for quoting. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema carries the burden, but no extra value is provided.

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 a text reply') and resource ('that quotes a previous message'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'send_message' (which doesn't quote) and 'edit_message' (which modifies rather than sends). It precisely defines the tool's unique functionality.

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 (replying to a previous message) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'send_message' for non-quoted replies or 'send_reaction' for simpler responses. It provides clear functional intent but lacks explicit comparison guidance.

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