mcp-wacli

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('demote') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient.

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, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about permissions, side effects, return values, and error handling, which are critical for safe tool invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'jid' as 'Group JID' and 'users' as 'List of phone numbers or JIDs to demote', adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format details (e.g., JID structure).

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 specific action ('demote'), target resource ('admin participants in a WhatsApp group'), and scope (admin participants only). It distinguishes from siblings like group_participants_promote (opposite action) and group_participants_remove (different outcome).

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 for demoting admin participants, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like group_participants_remove or prerequisites (e.g., needing admin rights). It distinguishes from promote but lacks comprehensive guidance.

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