Link a WhatsApp account

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

The description discloses rich operational behavior (returns a code, expires, requires polling, account prerequisite, ACCOUNT_NOT_FOUND), but it directly contradicts the annotations: readOnlyHint=true is false for a pairing/write action, and idempotentHint=true conflicts with 'call this again for a fresh one.' This is an annotation contradiction.

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 purpose and trigger conditions, then gives the user-facing link steps, polling behavior, expiry handling, prerequisites, and error case. Despite its length, every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 multi-step linking tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned (a code), how to present it, how to verify connection via get_status, how long to wait, and what to do if the code expires.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents phone format and account_id. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema: pass account_id when multiple accounts are configured and an unknown id returns ACCOUNT_NOT_FOUND.

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 action and resource: pairing this wazap with the user's WhatsApp account. It clearly distinguishes this from get_status by making get_status the trigger/status-check sibling, not the linking action.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions (get_status says not_linked, logged_out, session_corrupt, or auth_failure), explicit when-not-to-use guidance (never when already linked), prerequisites (account must exist), and the alternative action for an expired code.

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