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 explains that passing an empty string clears the status message. The annotations already indicate this is destructive (destructiveHint: true) and not read-only (readOnlyHint: false), but the description clarifies the specific destructive behavior (clearing vs. updating). 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 each serve a clear purpose: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides important behavioral detail about clearing. There's no wasted language or 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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with comprehensive annotations but no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use the parameter, and special behavior. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, but given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission.

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 input schema already fully documents the single parameter 'text'. The description reinforces that this parameter is for the 'new About text' and mentions the empty string behavior, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 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 ('Update'), the target resource ('user's WhatsApp 'About' text'), and the special case behavior ('empty string clears it'). It precisely distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'set_group_name' or 'set_privacy_setting' by focusing on the user's personal status message.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to update or clear the profile status message) and implicitly distinguishes it from group-related or message-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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