waha_add_label_to_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('add a label') but doesn't explain what happens if the label or chat doesn't exist, whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding behavior.

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 waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words, 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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error conditions, side effects, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to use it effectively and safely.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Label ID', 'Chat ID to label', 'Session name'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining where to get labelId or chatId values. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Add a label to a chat' clearly states the verb ('add') and resource ('label to a chat'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'waha_remove_label_from_chat' by specifying the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other labeling tools like 'waha_create_label' or 'waha_get_labels'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing label and chat), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'waha_remove_label_from_chat' or 'waha_get_labels'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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