mcp-whatsapp

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

Annotations indicate destructive (true), non-idempotent (false), and open-world (true) hints. The description adds valuable context by specifying the behavioral effect: 'only admins can send messages to the group' when enabled. This clarifies the destructive impact on group communication, enhancing transparency 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds essential behavioral detail in the second. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient 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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description explains the key behavioral effect. However, it lacks details on error conditions, response format, or integration with sibling tools, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or edge cases. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 ('Toggle announce-only mode') and the resource ('group'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_group_locked' or 'set_group_name' by focusing on message posting permissions rather than other group settings.

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 for controlling who can send messages in a group, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_group_locked' (which might restrict group membership) or provide exclusions. It lacks clear guidance on prerequisites or specific scenarios.

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