whatsapp_create_community

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

Annotations already declare the write/openWorld/non-idempotent profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful side-effect context the annotations cannot convey: participants are added immediately and notified, and the tool returns the new community JID. It stops short of describing approval/permission requirements.

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: creation semantics, the side effect, and the return value. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

With no output schema, naming the returned community JID is a valuable addition, and the immediate-notification side effect is covered. A note on whether approvalMode affects participant admission or any auth/prerequisite constraints would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces that participants are optional and that the caller becomes admin, but adds no new semantics for approvalMode or the JID format.

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 ('Create a new WhatsApp community') and clarifies that the calling number becomes admin, which separates it from create_group and create_community_group. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions or alternatives named, despite a dense sibling set that includes create_group, create_community_group, and link_group_to_community. The 'optionally adding participants' phrase only describes a capability, not a selection condition.

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