mcp-whatsapp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that when locked=true, only admins can change group metadata (name, topic, icon), which clarifies the specific security implications. Annotations already indicate destructive (true) and non-idempotent (false) behavior, but the description usefully specifies what gets restricted. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 are front-loaded and zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second explains the specific effect, making every word earn its place without 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (destructive group permission change), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and full parameter documentation, the description is largely complete. It explains the behavioral impact well, though without an output schema, it doesn't describe return values, which is a minor gap 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 already fully documents both parameters (chat_jid and locked). The description adds minimal semantic value by explaining the effect of the 'locked' parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 locked mode') and resource ('group metadata'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_group_name or set_group_topic by focusing on permission control rather than content changes. It precisely defines what 'locked mode' means in terms of admin-only metadata edits.

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 implicitly provides usage context by explaining what happens 'when locked is true,' indicating this tool is for controlling group metadata permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like set_group_announce (which controls announcement settings) or provide exclusion criteria for when not to use it.

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