whatsapp_set_group_member_add_mode

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, non-readOnly behavior, and the description adds real context beyond them: the admin-rights authorization requirement and the fact that a success confirmation is returned. It does not, however, say what the current mode is or whether the change is immediately visible to members.

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, each earning its place: what the setting controls, the authorization prerequisite, and the return behavior. The operative setting is front-loaded with no 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 simple two-parameter boolean mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and result shape, and the annotations handle the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain (failure mode without admin rights, immediate effect on members).

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% (id = Group JID, onlyAdminAdd = only admins can add members), so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description restates the boolean's two options but adds no format, JID syntax, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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?

The description names a specific verb-equivalent (choose/set) and a precise resource: who may add participants to a group, with the two possible values spelled out. It is clearly distinct from adjacent group-setting siblings like set_group_announce or set_group_locked, though it never names an alternative 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?

It gives one concrete prerequisite ('Requires admin rights'), which is more than most siblings offer, but says nothing about when to prefer this over other group-configuration calls or what happens on failure without admin rights. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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