Link a WhatsApp account

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

Annotations already flag this as non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it returns a pairing code, requires the user to complete manual steps, and instructs polling get_status every 10 seconds until connected. This is useful operational context not captured by annotations.

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?

Three sentences deliver the trigger condition, the manual user steps, and the polling instruction without fluff. Every sentence carries operational meaning, and the most important condition is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers trigger, procedure, expected output (a code), and post-call polling. With no output schema, it could be more explicit about the return shape of the code, but for a straightforward pairing action the guidance is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds little beyond referencing 'phone number' in the user flow; it does not explain account_id or clarify parameter semantics further. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Pair') and resource ('wazap with the user's WhatsApp'), and ties the action to explicit status conditions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_status or manage_chat because it defines the exact action and 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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: when get_status returns not_linked, logged_out, session_corrupt, or auth_failure. It also gives the full user-facing workflow and the polling loop, leaving no ambiguity about when or how to invoke it.

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