waha_subscribe_presence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Subscribe to presence updates,' implying a continuous or event-driven operation, but fails to specify whether this is a long-running connection, how updates are delivered (e.g., via callbacks or streams), what happens on errors, or if there are rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear for an agent.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Subscribe to presence updates') and specifies the target ('for a chat'), making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a subscription tool (which likely involves ongoing updates or event handling), the description is insufficient. No annotations are provided to clarify behavior, and there's no output schema to indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a subscription ID, confirmation, or error). This leaves the agent with significant gaps in understanding how to invoke and handle this tool effectively.

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, with 'chatId' clearly documented as 'Chat ID (format: number@c.us)'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on valid chat IDs. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the 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 clearly states the verb ('Subscribe to') and resource ('presence updates for a chat'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'waha_get_presence' or 'waha_get_all_presence', which appear to be read operations rather than subscription-based ones.

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 like 'waha_get_presence' or 'waha_get_all_presence'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an active connection or specific permissions, or when this subscription might be preferable to one-time presence checks.

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