whatsapp_create_community_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot: that supplied participants are actually added and notified, that admin rights are required for authorization, and that the JID is returned. It does not restate the safety/idempotency profile, which is fine since annotations carry it.

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 and scope, then the routing alternative, then the return value. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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, the description helpfully states the return value (new group JID). Combined with the auth requirement and alternative routing, an agent has everything needed to call this mutation correctly.

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 the schema already documents id (community JID), name, and participants (JIDs). The description adds the side-effect semantics of participants (added and notified) but no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (create) and resource (group inside a community), and explicitly distinguishes itself from whatsapp_link_group_to_community, which is the nearest sibling. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use-this vs. when-to-use-the-alternative clause ('To attach a group that already exists, use whatsapp_link_group_to_community'), plus a prerequisite ('Requires community admin rights'). Nothing material is left to inference.

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