whatsapp_update_group_participants

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds substantive context: admin rights needed, removed users lose access, affected parties are notified, silent add failures from privacy settings, and a success confirmation return. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then permissions, side effects, edge cases, and return value. 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, side effects on removed members, notification behavior, failure modes, and the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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%, so the schema already documents id, action (with enum) and participants. The description only adds 'by user JID' for addressing, which is marginal over the schema. Baseline 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 set of verbs (add, remove, promote, demote) on a specific resource (group participants) and identifies the addressing scheme (user JID). This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like whatsapp_update_community_participants or whatsapp_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?

Gives a prerequisite (requires admin rights) and an explicit verification workflow — consult whatsapp_get_group_participants because adds may fail silently. It does not name when to avoid this tool or spell out alternatives (e.g. leave_group), but the operational guidance is clear.

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