whatsapp_archive_chat

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

Annotations already declare destructive=false and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description nonetheless adds real value beyond them: it discloses that archiving is account-scoped, non-lossy (messages retained), and reversible, and that the call returns a success confirmation. That is meaningful behavioral context a caller cannot derive from the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by scope and reversibility, then the return note. Nothing is redundant and no sentence can be cut without losing information.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers action, state semantics, reversibility, scope, and the return behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and there is no output schema demanding further explanation.

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%: 'chatId' is documented as a Chat JID and 'archived' as the archive/unarchive flag. The description merely restates the boolean toggle and adds no format, default, or edge-case guidance (e.g., what happens if already archived). Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 ('archive or unarchive') and resource ('a chat'), and even covers the bidirectional toggle within the title-style opening. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like whatsapp_pin_chat, whatsapp_mute_chat, or whatsapp_clear_chat, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

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 clause 'Archiving only hides it from the main list on this account; messages are kept and it can be undone' implies when this is appropriate (decluttering without data loss), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as pin_chat or delete_chat. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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