waha_update_group_description

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, if changes are reversible, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on success/failure, or return values. For a tool that modifies group data, more context about constraints and outcomes would be necessary for safe usage.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format expectations for groupId, length limits for description, purpose of session parameter). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('description of a group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'waha_update_group_subject' and 'waha_update_group_picture' by specifying it updates the description rather than subject or picture. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the WhatsApp context or differentiate from broader group management tools beyond naming conventions.

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 group, proper permissions), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'waha_get_group' for checking current descriptions. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this operation is appropriate.

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