waha_clear_chat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Clear all messages' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects chat metadata, or has side effects (e.g., notifications). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 waste: 'Clear all messages in a chat'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), output format, or error conditions. For a tool that permanently modifies data, 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%, with both parameters ('chatId', 'session') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'chatId' is needed. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline 3 is appropriate—no extra value is added, but no harm is done.

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 'Clear all messages in a chat' clearly states the verb ('clear') and resource ('all messages in a chat'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'waha_delete_message' (single message) and 'waha_delete_chat' (entire chat). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the platform (WhatsApp) or differentiate from similar tools like 'waha_archive_chat', so it's not a perfect 5.

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., chat must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for partial clearing), or compare it to siblings like 'waha_delete_chat' or 'waha_archive_chat'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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