mcp-wacli

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the action but doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects group notifications, or what happens upon success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another documenting the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the 'Args' formatting is slightly redundant since it repeats the parameter name.

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 cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity of leaving a group (which may have permissions or notifications implications), more context 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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'jid' as 'Group JID', adding meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain what a JID is, its format, or where to find it, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Leave') and resource ('a WhatsApp group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'group_join' or 'group_participants_remove' which also involve group membership changes.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to be a current member), exclusions, or how this differs from similar tools like 'group_participants_remove' (which removes others).

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