whatsapp_update_group_description

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the change is visible to all participants, it may require admin rights on locked groups, and it returns a success confirmation. This is solid added value for a mutation tool.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the two facts an agent most needs (visibility and permission risk). 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 mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the description covers purpose, visibility side effect, permission prerequisite, and return confirmation. Only minor gaps remain, such as any length limits or whether the previous description is recoverable.

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 'id' (Group JID) and 'description' (New group description) are already fully documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change a group's description'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like whatsapp_update_group_name or whatsapp_set_group_picture. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, but the resource is precise enough that no agent would confuse them.

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?

Provides the key gating condition: it may require admin rights if the group is locked. That tells the agent when the call is likely to fail. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating an explicit when-not-to-use, but no direct alternative exists for this operation.

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