waha_remove_label_from_chat

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. 'Remove a label from a chat' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, whether the removal is permanent or reversible, what happens if the label doesn't exist on that chat, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after removal (success/failure indicators), whether there are side effects, or what permissions are required. Given the complexity of label management in messaging systems, more context about the operation's behavior and outcomes is needed.

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 (labelId, chatId, session) with basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what format the IDs should be in, where to find them, or what the 'session' parameter represents in this context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Remove a label') and target ('from a chat'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'waha_add_label_to_chat' by using the opposite action (remove vs add). However, it doesn't specify whether this removes labels from WhatsApp chats specifically or what system it operates on.

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 existing label and chat), when this operation is appropriate, or what happens if the label isn't currently on the chat. The sibling tool 'waha_add_label_to_chat' exists, but no comparison is provided.

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