Refresh the WhatsApp address book from the server when contact data looks outdated. Runs in the background and returns an acknowledgement, not the contacts.
Re-sync the address book from the WhatsApp servers. Use it when whatsapp_get_contacts looks outdated. It runs in the background. Returns an acknowledgement, not the contacts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds two things annotations cannot convey: that execution is asynchronous ('runs in the background') and that the return value is an acknowledgement, not contact data. It stops short of noting auth/prerequisite state, so 4 rather than 5.
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 it does, when to use it, and what it returns. The action statement is front-loaded and there is 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?
With no input parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition still closes the two gaps an agent would otherwise hit: async execution and a non-contact acknowledgement return. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or scope arguments are accepted.
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+resource ('Re-sync the address book from the WhatsApp servers') and immediately scopes it against the sibling it most resembles, whatsapp_get_contacts. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.
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?
Names the trigger condition explicitly ('Use it when whatsapp_get_contacts looks outdated') and effectively names the alternative tool. Nothing about when to reach for this instead of the read-only sibling is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.