whatsapp_set_group_announce

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly false, idempotent true, non-destructive), so the description adds the real value: the admin-rights requirement, the group-wide effect on non-admin senders, and the success return. It doesn't describe whether existing non-admin messages are affected or how failure is surfaced, which would be the remaining gap.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the consequence, then the precondition and return. Nothing is redundant and nothing requires the reader to hunt.

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 simple two-parameter toggle this is complete: action, effect, auth requirement, and return behavior are all covered, and the annotations carry the safety profile. No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what to expect back.

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% with only two parameters (id, enabled), both documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter format or values (e.g., accepted JID forms), so this is the baseline 3 for schema-driven tools.

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 ('Turn announcement mode on or off') and immediately explains the concrete effect ('only admins can send messages'). That effect distinguishes it from neighbors like whatsapp_set_group_locked or whatsapp_set_group_member_add_mode, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Requires admin rights' gives one prerequisite, which is genuinely useful context. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose announcement mode versus the other group-restriction siblings (locked, join approval, member add mode), leaving the selection to inference.

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