waha_block_contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (block/unblock) but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible (beyond the block parameter), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('Block or unblock a contact') that front-loads the core purpose with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters.

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 (permissions, reversibility), error handling, or return values. For a tool that modifies contact access, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain contactId format beyond '@c.us', session implications, or default behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Block or unblock a contact', which specifies the action (block/unblock) and target resource (contact). It distinguishes from siblings like waha_get_contact (read-only) or waha_delete_chat (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other contact-modification tools, which are absent from the sibling list.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active session), consequences (e.g., blocked contacts can't send messages), or related tools (e.g., waha_get_contact to verify contactId). Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameters.

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