mcp-whatsapp

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write operation. The description adds minimal context beyond that—it doesn't specify what 'unblock' entails (e.g., restoring messaging capabilities) or any side effects. 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate given the clear annotations. However, it lacks details on what happens after unblocking (e.g., success indicators or error conditions), which would help an agent use it correctly.

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%, so the input schema fully documents the 'jid' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying 'jid' can be a phone number or JID, which is already covered in the schema.

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 ('unblock') and resource ('a contact'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'block_contact' by specifying the opposite operation. It's precise and unambiguous.

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, prerequisites, or exclusions. It doesn't mention that 'get_blocklist' might be used first to check blocked contacts, or clarify if unblocking is needed for messaging.

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