waha_request_pairing_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that 'The user will receive a code on their phone to enter in WhatsApp,' which adds some behavioral context about user interaction. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after code entry, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely involves authentication flows.

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 concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and context, and the second explains the user action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and user flow but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication state changes, error scenarios, or integration with other tools (e.g., waha_check_auth_status). For an authentication-related tool, more context on outcomes and dependencies would be beneficial.

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 fully documents the two parameters (session and phoneNumber). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or usage tips. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles 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 tool's purpose: 'Request a pairing code for phone number authentication (alternative to QR code).' It specifies the action (request), resource (pairing code), and context (authentication). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'waha_get_qr_code' beyond mentioning it as an alternative, which is slightly less specific than ideal.

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 implies usage context by stating it's 'for phone number authentication (alternative to QR code),' which suggests when to use it versus QR code methods. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over other authentication methods or prerequisites, such as session setup or user readiness.

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