mcp-whatsapp

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it warns that 'Not every name/value combination is valid' and that 'WhatsApp rejects invalid combinations server-side.' This complements the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by explaining validation behavior and server-side rejection.

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 serve distinct purposes: the first states the core function, and the second provides critical behavioral context. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information appears first.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the core function and validation behavior but lacks information about return values, error responses, or what happens when settings are changed. The annotations help but don't fully compensate for the missing output documentation.

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 and both parameters fully documented with enums, the schema already provides complete parameter information. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 action ('Change a single privacy setting') and specifies the resource ('privacy setting'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_privacy_settings' beyond the implied write vs. read distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention the sibling 'get_privacy_settings' tool for checking current settings, nor does it discuss prerequisites, error conditions, or appropriate contexts for changing privacy settings.

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