send_group_invite_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never states whether the caller must be an admin/participant, what happens if the number is not on WhatsApp, whether sending is rate-limited, or whether the invite link has an expiry.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted words and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the other gaps.

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/messaging tool with nested required input, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits preconditions, side effects, and any indication of what the call returns or how failures surface.

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 0% at the top level: neither 'data' nor 'groupId' is documented. The nested 'number' and 'message' fields do have Portuguese descriptions, but the description text itself adds no parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered required parameters.

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?

States a specific verb (envia) and resource (link de convite de um grupo), so an agent knows it sends a group's invite link rather than a plain message. However it offers no explicit differentiation from siblings like send_text_message or send_contact_message beyond the tool name itself, and 'na Zappaz API' is filler.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must be a group admin), and no mention of alternatives among the many send_* siblings. The agent must infer all selection logic from the name alone.

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