waha_promote_group_participant

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 the action ('Promote') which implies a mutation, but doesn't describe effects (e.g., admin privileges granted), potential errors (e.g., if participants aren't in the group), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after promotion, potential return values, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like whether multiple participants can be promoted at once (implied by 'participant(s)' but not confirmed).

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 documents all three parameters (groupId, participants, session) with basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameter usage, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Promote') and target ('participant(s) to group admin'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the resource (group participants) but doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'waha_demote_group_participant' beyond the opposite action direction, which is implicit but not explicit.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list includes 'waha_demote_group_participant' for the opposite action, the description doesn't mention it or provide context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases for promotion.

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