Update WhatsApp Credentials

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint: false, signaling it is not destructive, which aligns with the 'update' description. However, the description does not add further behavioral context, such as whether all credentials are replaced atomically, if validation occurs, or any side effects.

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 sentence that gets straight to the point, with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat terse and could benefit from slight expansion for clarity, balancing conciseness with completeness.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should mention what the tool returns (e.g., success message or updated credentials). It also fails to explain the overall flow, such as whether this is a one-time setup or requires prior creation.

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 schema already documents each parameter (orgId, phone number ID, business account ID, access token). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond stating the overall purpose, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Update') and the resource ('WhatsApp Business API credentials'), with 'for the organization' specifying scope. It is unique among sibling tools, which include many other update tools but none specifically for WhatsApp credentials.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. For example, it does not clarify if this tool can also create credentials or if credentials must exist first, nor does it mention when to use other WhatsApp-related tools like neuron_send_whatsapp.

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