update_whatsapp_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates data (via [mutation] tag), constrains name changes to personal accounts, and optionally applies changes to other sessions. However, it does not describe whether the update is a full replacement or partial update, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting fields), or error scenarios.

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 concise (two sentences plus a tag) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence provides relevant information without extraneous content. It is well-structured 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 has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors (field updates, name constraint, multi-session application) but lacks information on return values, error reporting, or side effects like data overwrite. Adequate but not fully complete for a mutation tool.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by grouping fields (info/about, company data) and explaining the name constraint and optional session application. However, it does not add detailed semantics beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 it updates WhatsApp profile fields, including info/about and company data. It differentiates from siblings like get_whatsapp_profile (read) and remove_whatsapp_profile_picture (specific removal) by focusing on updating multiple fields. The verb 'Actualizar' and resource 'perfil de WhatsApp' are specific.

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 implies usage for updating profile fields, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_whatsapp_profile for reading, remove_whatsapp_profile_picture for picture removal). It notes that name change is only for personal accounts, which is a constraint but not a usage guideline.

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