Take a chat off the waiting list

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the mark is local-only, nothing is sent or marked read on WhatsApp, and the handled state auto-reverses when the other side next messages. This mirrors and enriches the idempotentHint=true / destructiveHint=false annotations rather than contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the triggering situation before the state effect and the local-only caveat. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the WhatsApp reply aside is slightly incidental but still clarifying.

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?

With annotations covering safety/idempotency and a fully described schema, the description supplies the remaining behavioral context an agent needs: what is mutated, what is not transmitted to WhatsApp, and how the state reverses on its own.

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 both chat_id and account_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax, format, or resolution detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (mark handled) on a specific resource (the open ask in a chat) and names the observable effect: the chat leaves get_unanswered. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_unanswered or manage_chat without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: the user dealt with the ask outside WhatsApp (phone call, meeting, decision). It also contrasts the state transition with get_unanswered's listing behavior, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or an exclusion case.

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