waha_promote_group_admin

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 mentions the admin privilege requirement, which is useful, but fails to describe other critical behaviors such as whether the promotion is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 with just two sentences that directly state the action and a key requirement. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and well-structured without any wasted text.

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 as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively. The admin requirement is helpful but doesn't compensate for other missing context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters (groupId and participants) with formats. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from the description.

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 the action ('Promote participant(s) to group admin') and specifies the resource ('group'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'waha_demote_group_admin' beyond the opposite action, missing a direct comparison that would earn a perfect score.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires admin privileges'), which provides some context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'waha_demote_group_admin' or other group management tools, leaving usage somewhat implied rather than fully specified.

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