whatsapp_update_community_participants

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable operational context: admin-rights requirement, that removed participants lose access, that affected users are notified, and that the call returns a success confirmation. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, followed by prerequisite, side effects, and return behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information and no sentence is redundant.

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 destructive, admin-gated community participant mutation with rich annotations and a fully described input schema, the description covers the permission requirement, consequences for removed users, notification behavior, and return confirmation. No output schema exists, so omitting return-field details is appropriate.

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%, so the schema already documents the community JID, action enum, and participant JID list. The description restates the action set and that participants are identified by JID, which is marginally useful but does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb set (add, remove, promote, demote) and a precise resource (community participants) and identifies the identifier type (user JID). The resource name itself distinguishes it from the sibling whatsapp_update_group_participants, which operates on groups rather than communities.

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 a clear precondition (requires admin rights) and implies the operation's scope via 'of a community'. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the group-participant alternative, but the resource contrast with the sibling name is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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