Invite someone to link their number

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

Annotations carry no positive hints (all flags false), so the description shoulders the burden. It discloses a non-obvious, critical behavior: the 'url' is returned only here and may be emailed via inviteeEmail. It doesn't cover expiration or cancellation, but it adds meaningful side-effect context beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function. Each sentence adds distinct value: what is created, how to share it, and an optional email side-effect. There is no redundancy or 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 tool with 12 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the most important output (url) and a side effect, but it does not explain the full response shape, error conditions, or the invitation lifecycle (e.g., later retrieval or cancellation). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds useful context for inviteeEmail (wuapi can email the URL) and the returned url. However, three parameters (historySync, inviteeName, inviteeEmail) lack schema descriptions, and the description only partially compensates by explaining inviteeEmail.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a branded page') and adds a distinctive condition: the customer links their own WhatsApp number without needing a wuapi account. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_invitation, cancel_invitation, and create_account.

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 use by explaining what it creates and noting that the 'url' is returned only here, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling. The phrase 'without an account on wuapi' hints at a contrast with account creation, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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