Update a WhatsApp account privacy setting to control who can see profile, status, last seen, online status, or add you to groups. Applies to all contacts immediately.
Change one privacy setting of the account, for example who can see the profile picture. Applies immediately to all contacts. Returns the updated settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | Privacy level | |
| setting | Yes | Privacy setting to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds value beyond annotations by stating the change 'applies immediately to all contacts' and that it 'returns the updated settings' – behavioral facts not in the annotations or schema. Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the added immediacy/scope note earns credit, though rate-limit or failure behavior is still absent.
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: purpose, scope of effect, and return value. Front-loaded with the verb and resource. No redundancy.
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 idempotent mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, effect scope, and return value. Small gap: no guidance on how this interacts with the sibling read tool or on partial failure if a setting/value combination is invalid.
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 enums on both parameters, so the schema carries the semantics. The description's example ('who can see the profile picture') loosely maps to the profile setting but adds no syntax or mapping detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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) + resource (privacy setting of the account) with a concrete example ('who can see the profile picture'). An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like whatsapp_get_privacy_settings or whatsapp_set_group_locked.
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?
The description implies usage (changing an individual privacy setting) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling get_privacy_settings tool for reading current values, and no note about prerequisites or ordering when changing multiple settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.