waha_create_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new WhatsApp session' implies a write operation that likely requires specific permissions or setup, but it doesn't disclose what 'create' entails—whether it initializes a session with QR scanning, sets up webhooks, or has side effects like data syncing. It also omits details on error conditions, rate limits, or what happens if a session already exists. 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—'Create a new WhatsApp session'—that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose.

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 creating a WhatsApp session (a mutation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, status), behavioral traits (e.g., whether it's idempotent, requires QR scanning), and error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more guidance on outcomes and usage, but it does not.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter well-documented (e.g., 'Session name', 'Webhook URL for events'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., if 'enableStore' affects 'fullSync'). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context.

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 session' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('WhatsApp session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'waha_start_session' (which likely activates an existing session) and 'waha_get_session' (which retrieves session info), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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., authentication status), when to choose this over 'waha_start_session' (which might resume an existing session), or any dependencies. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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