whatsapp_update_group_participants

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

With no annotations, the description only lists actions without disclosing permissions, side effects, or limitations. It does not mention important behavioral traits like rate limits or required admin status.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, but it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) that could improve readability for an agent.

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 mutation tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete—it does not explain return behavior, error conditions, or prerequisites like group membership.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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?

The description clearly specifies the actions (add, remove, promote, demote) and resource (group participants), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_group or get_group_participants.

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 for modifying participants but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_group_requests or when not to use it.

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