whatsapp_mute_newsletter

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the mutation and idempotency characteristics are covered. The description adds useful return context ('Returns a success confirmation'), which is valuable since no output schema exists, but says nothing about permission requirements or side effects.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding; the action is front-loaded and the return note follows. Appropriately sized for a simple toggle tool.

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?

For a 2-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers purpose and return behavior adequately. It omits disambiguation from whatsapp_mute_chat and what a 'channel' JID refers to, leaving a small gap an agent might need.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (id=Newsletter JID, mute=boolean) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 pair (mute/unmute) and resource (a channel's notifications), and scopes it to 'this account'. The resource term 'channel' rather than 'newsletter' is slightly ambiguous against siblings like whatsapp_mute_chat, but the intended target is still clear from the tool name.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the closely related sibling whatsapp_mute_chat, and no exclusions or prerequisites. 'on this account' is a minor scope note but does not tell the agent when to pick this over alternatives.

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