whatsapp_reset_community_invite_link

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

The description implies non-idempotent behavior: each call creates a new link and returns it, so repeated calls produce different results. This directly contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=true. Although it adds useful context (old link stops working immediately, admin required, returns new link), the contradiction forces a 1 per the rules.

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, each front-loaded with essential information: action, immediate consequence, prerequisite, and return value. No waste.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and existing annotations, the description covers the key points an agent needs: purpose, destructive effect, auth requirement, and return value.

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 the single parameter (id) is already documented as 'Community JID'. The description does not add any further parameter-level meaning, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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?

Specifies the exact verb (revoke) and resource (community's invite link) and the resulting action (create a new one). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like whatsapp_get_community_invite_link (retrieval) and whatsapp_reset_group_invite_link (group scope).

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?

States the core operation and prerequisite (requires admin rights), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as retrieving the link without resetting or contrast with the group-level sibling.

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