set_privacy_setting

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds that 'Not every name/value combination is valid; WhatsApp rejects invalid combinations server-side', which explains a potential failure mode. This goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes essential usage guidance without any redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description covers the main purpose, usage, and a key behavioral note. It mentions the sibling tool for viewing current settings. However, it could be more complete by describing possible error responses or confirmation feedback, but given the annotations, it is largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with both 'name' and 'value' parameters fully described via enums. The description adds no further meaning to the parameters themselves, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 'Change a single privacy setting', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_privacy_settings' by implying a write operation as opposed to a read operation.

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 advises 'Use get_privacy_settings to view current values first', giving explicit guidance on a prerequisite. It also warns that invalid combinations are rejected, implying users should verify their input. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or provide alternative tools for bulk changes.

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