whatsapp_reset_group_invite_link

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful context they don't carry: the old link is invalidated immediately, admin rights are required, and the tool returns the new link. The only gap is that repeated calls mint a different link each time, which sits in mild tension with idempotentHint=true, though this is not a hard contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the immediate consequence, then the prerequisite, then the return value. No sentence is filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what happens, the side effect on the old link, the permission requirement, and what comes back. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is documented as 'Group JID' in the schema itself. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the 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 ('Revoke a group's invite link and create a new one'), which an agent can immediately distinguish from the sibling whatsapp_get_group_invite_link that only reads the link. The downstream effect (old link stops working) further pins down the operation.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('Requires admin rights') and implies the use case of rotating a compromised link, but never names the alternative action (e.g. calling whatsapp_get_group_invite_link to merely view the current link) or states when-not to use it.

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