whatsapp_clear_chat

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'cannot be undone' (explicit irreversibility), 'does not affect other participants' (blast radius), and 'Returns a success confirmation' (output signal). It does not mention auth or rate limits, and the return note is thin given there is no output schema, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Four compact sentences, with the core action front-loaded, followed by irreversibility/scope, alternative routing, and return behavior. Every sentence adds something and there is 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 destructive chat operation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies purpose, scope, alternative, irreversibility, and return shape. Nothing material 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?

There is only one required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already documents 'chatId' as a 'Chat JID'. The description adds no additional format, syntax, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete all messages in a chat') and immediately clarifies scope ('keep the chat in the list'). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling 'whatsapp_delete_chat', so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'To remove the chat entirely, use whatsapp_delete_chat.' It also notes the non-effect on other participants, which helps an agent decide when this narrow clear operation is appropriate versus full deletion.

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