Leave a WhatsApp group by Group JID. Other participants are notified, rejoining needs a new invite, and if you are the only admin, WhatsApp assigns another admin.
Leave a group. Other participants are notified, and rejoining needs a new invite. If this number is the only admin, WhatsApp picks another one. Returns a success confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Group JID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: other participants get notified, rejoining requires a fresh invite, and an admin role is auto-reassigned if this number is the sole admin. It stops short of explaining failure modes or what happens if the id is invalid.
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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the side effects and edge case following in order of importance.
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 correctly closes the loop by stating a success confirmation is returned, and it covers the side effects and admin edge case an agent should anticipate for a destructive group operation.
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?
The single id parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'Group JID' (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what is already structured; 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 (leave) and resource (group) immediately, which cleanly separates it from the nearby whatsapp_leave_community and the group-management siblings like update_group_participants.
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?
Usage is implied by the name and the action is unambiguous, but the description never states when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. leave_community) or any precondition on the id. The note about needing a new invite to rejoin is a consequence, not explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.