waha_pin_chat

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. 'Pin or unpin a chat' implies a state change operation, but it doesn't describe what pinning actually does (e.g., keeps chat at top of list), whether it requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, or what happens on success/failure. 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 states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple toggle operation and front-loads the core functionality immediately.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what pinning means in this context, what the expected outcome is, or any error conditions. Given the complexity of chat state management and the lack of structured behavioral information, the description should provide more context about the operation's effects.

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 the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 action ('pin or unpin') and resource ('a chat'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'waha_archive_chat' or 'waha_mute_chat' by specifying a different chat management operation. However, it doesn't specify whether this applies to individual or group chats, which would make it 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 pinning is appropriate versus other chat management tools like archiving or muting, or what happens if you try to pin an already-pinned chat. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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