mcp-wacli

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Remove') but doesn't mention critical aspects like required permissions (admin status), whether removal is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Both sentences earn their place, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated (e.g., 'Removes specified users from a WhatsApp group using the group JID and user identifiers').

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, no output schema, and 2 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error handling, permissions, and side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 explicitly lists both parameters (jid, users) and provides semantic clarification: 'jid' is the 'Group JID' and 'users' are 'List of phone numbers or JIDs to remove'. With 0% schema description coverage, this adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could specify format examples (e.g., phone number format).

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 ('Remove participants') and resource ('from a WhatsApp group'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like group_participants_add, group_participants_promote, and group_participants_demote. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 like group_leave (for self-removal) or group_participants_demote/promote (for role changes). It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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