Update a WhatsApp community's description as an admin. Provide the community ID and new text to change it for all members and receive a success confirmation.
Change a community's description. Requires admin rights; all members see it. Returns a success confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Community JID | |
| description | No | New description |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety/mutability profile is provided. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the admin-rights requirement and the visibility fact ('all members see it'), plus the return confirmation. It does not contradict annotations.
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 clauses, each carrying distinct information (action, prerequisite/effect, return), front-loaded with the verbi. No padding.
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?
A simple 2-param mutation with idempotentHint and full schema coverage, so little more is needed. The description covers action, permission, effect, and return confirmation. Only minor gaps remain: clearing/emptying the description and what happens on missing admin rights.
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%, with 'id' documented as 'Community JID' and 'description' as 'New description'. The description adds nothing about either parameter (e.g., length limits, empty-string behavior to clear it), 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?
Specific verb (Change) plus specific resource (a community's description) and even names the target field. Clearly distinguishable from the sibling whatsapp_update_group_description (group vs community) and from whatsapp_set_community_name/picture.
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 permission prerequisite ('Requires admin rights'), which is useful context for whether to attempt the call. However, no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no note on what happens if the caller lacks admin rights, and no mention of the sibling community setters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.