mcp-whatsapp

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which tells the agent this is a non-idempotent mutation with destructive potential. The description adds useful context about admin privileges, which isn't captured in annotations. However, it doesn't describe behavioral details like what happens when adding existing participants, error conditions, or rate limits.

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 just two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second states the critical admin requirement. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context. The admin requirement is crucial information not captured elsewhere. However, without an output schema, some description of expected return values or success indicators would be helpful, though not strictly required given the annotations already signal the operation type.

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 thoroughly documents all three parameters including the enum values for 'action' and JID formats. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 actions (add, remove, promote, demote) on a specific resource (participants of a group) using a strong verb phrase. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_group', 'set_group_name', or 'leave_group' by focusing specifically on participant management rather than group creation, metadata modification, or user departure.

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 explicitly states 'Requires admin privileges' which provides clear context about when this tool can be used. However, it doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'set_group_announce' or 'set_group_locked', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond admin access.

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