Create a group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral nuance: participants with restrictive privacy settings receive an invite code instead of being added directly. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining a real edge case and pointing to the result for visibility.

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?

Two sentences with no waste: the first states the core action, the second covers an important edge case. Information is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at what the caller receives, and it does via 'see the result' for invite codes. However, it does not specify the overall return shape (e.g., group ID, status). Given strong schema annotations and full parameter documentation, this is a minor gap rather than a fatal one.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the participants parameter may result either in direct addition or in invite codes depending on privacy settings. It also clarifies that accountId makes the account the owner. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema's plain field descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a WhatsApp group with the account as owner.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_group_participants, get_group, or leave_group. The ownership detail adds precision beyond the title.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. An agent must infer from the name and the sibling list that this is for creating a new group rather than modifying an existing one. No mention of 'use this for new groups; use add_group_participants for existing groups'.

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