whatsapp_create_group

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds real context beyond that: participants are added immediately and notified (third-party side effect), calling twice creates two groups (concrete consequence of non-idempotency), and it returns the new group JID, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the side-effect/return-value caveats following. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the description supplies the return value plus the notification side effect, so an agent can call this correctly. Minor gaps remain: no handling guidance for invalid JIDs or failure behavior.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description only restates 'participants (user JIDs)' and adds that the session number becomes admin, which is implicit behavior rather than parameter meaning — so 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 and resource ('Create a new group') and adds scope detail — the calling number becomes admin and participants are the given user JIDs. This clearly separates it from siblings like whatsapp_create_community_group, whatsapp_create_newsletter, and whatsapp_create_contact.

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 or alternative routing is given. The description never mentions when to prefer this over whatsapp_create_community_group, whatsapp_join_group_with_link, or the many group-management siblings; usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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