waha_create_group

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 it's a creation tool, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether it returns a group ID, error conditions (e.g., invalid participants), or side effects (e.g., notifications to participants). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. There's no redundancy or fluff, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 the complexity of a group creation tool (a mutation with multiple parameters), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should do more. It doesn't explain what happens upon success (e.g., returns a group ID), error handling, or dependencies (e.g., session must be active). For a tool with no structured output or safety hints, this is incomplete.

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 descriptions for all parameters (name, participants, session). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for 'participants' or default behavior for 'session'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new WhatsApp group' clearly states the action (create) and resource (WhatsApp group), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'waha_update_group_subject' or 'waha_leave_group' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't specify what distinguishes it from similar creation tools (e.g., 'waha_create_session'), 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., needing an active session), compare it to related tools (e.g., 'waha_add_group_participants' for modifying existing groups), or specify when not to use it (e.g., for updating groups). This lack of context leaves the agent to 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.