waha_add_group_participants

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add participants to a group' which implies a mutation operation, but lacks details on permissions required, error handling (e.g., if participants are invalid), side effects (e.g., notifications sent), or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and target efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like success/error responses, prerequisites, or integration with sibling tools. Given the complexity of group management in WhatsApp, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for all three parameters (groupId, participants, session). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'Group ID' represents or how participants are identified. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Add') and target ('participants to a group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'waha_remove_group_participants' by specifying addition rather than removal, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other group management tools like 'waha_promote_group_participant' or 'waha_create_group'.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing group), exclusions (e.g., not for creating groups), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'waha_create_group' for initial setup or 'waha_get_group_participants' for viewing members.

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