whatsapp_block_contact

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

Annotations already cover safety (idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the blocked party is not notified, and the action is reversible via whatsapp_unblock_contact. It does not discuss rate limits or how blocking an already-blocked contact behaves, but it covers the key consequences an agent needs.

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, each earning its place: the action, the consequence, the reversibility, and the return shape. The core action is front-loaded with no filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with a clear annotation profile and no output schema, the description covers action, effect, notification behavior, reversibility, and return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description merely echoes the JID concept ('by user JID') without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Block a contact by user JID') and immediately describes the effect: they can no longer message or call, and are not notified. This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling whatsapp_unblock_contact, which it names explicitly.

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 names the reversing operation (whatsapp_unblock_contact) and states reversibility, giving clear context for when this action can be undone. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites (e.g., whether the contact must exist first), so it stops short of a 5.

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