Log out and unlink the current WhatsApp instance from the phone; all other tools stop working until the number is paired again with a QR or pair code.
Log this instance out of WhatsApp and unlink it from the phone. Every other tool stops working until the number is paired again with a QR or pair code. Returns a success confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the blast radius on all other tools and the recovery path via QR/pair code. It omits auth/prerequisite requirements, keeping it out of 5 territory.
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, then the consequence, then the return value. No filler or restatement of the name or annotations.
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 usefully states the return value ('a success confirmation') and discloses the post-logout state and recovery route. For a zero-param destructive terminal action this is nearly complete; only preconditions/permissions are unaddressed.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric; there is no parameter surface for the description to explain or omit.
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+resource ('Log this instance out of WhatsApp and unlink it from the phone') with unambiguous scope. No sibling tool covers logout, so there is nothing to disambiguate against; it falls just short of a 5 only because it names no alternative or contrast case.
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 describes the operational consequence ('Every other tool stops working until the number is paired again') and implicitly points at the re-pairing tools (get_qr_code, get_pair_code), but never explicitly says when to invoke this tool or what must precede it. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.