demote_group_participantsDemote group admins to regular members by providing account ID, group ID, and contact IDs.
Turn group admins back into regular members.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groupId | Yes | The group id (`...@g.us`), from list_groups. | |
| accountId | Yes | The wuapi account id of the linked number to act as (from list_accounts). | |
| contactIds | Yes | Contact ids: E.164 with + (`+584241112233`) or `lid:<digits>`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that the operation mutates, is idempotent, and is non-destructive. The description adds the key behavioral point that affected users remain group members rather than being removed, but it does not discuss partial failures, permissions, or behavior for non-admin contacts. No annotation contradiction exists.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and result with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning.
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 mutation with fully documented parameters, idempotent and non-destructive annotations, and a clear outcome, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. It does not describe return values, but there is no output schema and the state change itself is the main contract; the main gap is the missing explicit usage routing.
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 schema describes 100% of the parameters, including accountId, groupId, and contactIds with formats and sources. The description contributes no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 uses an active verb ('Turn ... back') and a precise target state ('regular members'), making clear that this tool removes admin rights while keeping users in the group. This distinguishes it from both promote_group_participants and remove_group_participants without ambiguity.
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 the usage scenario: use it when group admins should lose admin rights but remain members. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the sibling promote/remove tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.