Manage a WhatsApp group

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

The description highlights that 'leave' is destructive and requires a new invite to rejoin, and that all actions except leave require admin privileges. These details go beyond the annotations (destructiveHint true) to explain specific consequences. It does not mention other potential side effects (e.g., removing a member), but the admin check note adds transparency.

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 compact and well-organized as a bulleted list of actions with their parameters. It avoids superfluous prose and front-loads the core purpose, making it easy to scan. No redundant information is present.

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 complexity (multiple actions, admin requirements, destructive leave), the description covers the essential operational aspects: action list, parameter associations, admin prerequisite, and a specific warning about leave. It does not describe output formats or error handling, but no output schema exists, and those are not always required.

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 maps actions to required parameters (e.g., add/remove need participant_ids, set_subject needs value), which the schema does not specify per action. This adds essential cross-referencing that helps the agent construct correct calls. The schema already describes each parameter individually, so the description supplements rather than repeats.

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 'Administer a group' and enumerates specific actions (add, remove, promote, etc.), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like manage_chat or create_group by focusing exclusively on group management operations.

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 actionable usage guidance, such as calling get_group_info first to verify admin status. It implicitly tells when to use this tool (for group membership and settings management) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like manage_chat or send_message. The action list makes the appropriate use case clear enough.

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