whatsapp_connect

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

The description discloses the primary behavioral trait: it shows a QR code in the chat, requiring user action to scan. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively communicates the non-destructive, user-interactive nature of the operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's action and benefit. It contains no unnecessary words and earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains what it does and how, though it could explicitly mention that the user needs to scan the QR code with their phone. Still, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that a QR code is displayed in the chat, which is the core mechanism. This fully compensates for the lack of parameters, exceeding the baseline of 4.

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 tool's purpose: linking WhatsApp to Local MCP via a QR code shown in the chat. It uses a specific verb ('Link') and resource ('WhatsApp'), and it distinguishes itself from other WhatsApp-related sibling tools like whatsapp_disconnect, whatsapp_list_chats, etc.

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 implicitly tells when to use the tool: when you want to connect WhatsApp without using the terminal. It does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives, but given the lack of other WhatsApp connect tools among siblings, the usage context is clear enough.

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