Rename a WhatsApp group so all participants see the new name; may require admin rights if the group is locked. Returns a success confirmation.
Rename a group. All participants see the change; it may require admin rights if the group is locked. Returns a success confirmation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Group JID | |
| name | Yes | New group name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / groupIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Group ID (with @g.us)",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Group JID",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "groupId",
- "name"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: the rename is visible to all participants, may require admin rights, and returns a success confirmation. This exceeds what the structured fields convey, though it does not detail failures or partial-success behavior.
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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the side effects and permission caveat. Every sentence earns its place.
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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the effect, the permission caveat, and the return behavior, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It stops short of describing failure modes or rate limits, but nothing critical 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% ('Group JID', 'New group name'), so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no format, naming constraints, or length limits beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('Rename a group'), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutations like whatsapp_update_group_description, whatsapp_set_group_picture, or whatsapp_set_group_locked. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?
The description gives a conditional prerequisite ('may require admin rights if the group is locked'), which is useful context for deciding whether the call will succeed. However, it names no alternatives or when-not conditions, so usage is only implied rather than fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.