whatsapp_set_community_locked

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

Annotations already cover the mutation/idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description layers on meaningful extra context: the semantic effect of locked mode, the admin-rights requirement, and the return confirmation. It does not mention reversibility beyond the toggle itself, but adds genuine value over the structured fields.

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, effect-first, with zero filler. The key semantic ('only admins can edit info') is front-loaded before the prerequisite and return note.

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-param boolean toggle with no output schema, the description supplies effect, prerequisite, and result confirmation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Only the sibling-routing gap keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, so both parameters are already documented ('Community JID', 'Enable or disable'). The description's 'on or off' and 'for a community' merely restate those, adding no format or syntax detail. 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?

Clear verb+resource ('turn locked mode on or off for a community') with the concrete effect explained ('only admins can edit the community's info'). It implicitly separates itself from the group analog via 'for a community', but never names whatsapp_set_group_locked as the sibling to use for groups.

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 a real precondition ('Requires admin rights') and the toggle intent is obvious, but gives no when-not guidance and does not route the agent to the near-identical sibling whatsapp_set_group_locked. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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