waha_clear_chat_messages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively warns that the operation is 'destructive' and 'cannot be undone,' which is crucial for a mutation tool. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'clear' entails (e.g., whether it affects media files or just text).

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 extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the purpose and a critical warning. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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 destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the high-risk aspect but misses details like response format, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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%, with the single parameter 'chatId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 explicitly states the action ('Clear all messages') and the target resource ('from a chat'), which is specific and unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like waha_delete_message (single message deletion) or waha_delete_chat (entire chat deletion), establishing a unique scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., chat must exist), compare to similar tools like waha_delete_chat, or specify contexts where clearing messages is appropriate versus other actions. The warning implies caution but doesn't offer usage criteria.

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