Read and answer stories

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that reading is silent while `view` notifies the contact (and that `authorNotified: false` means read receipts are off), that reactions are author-only, that `delete` removes the story for everyone and is irreversible, that `fetchMedia` does not mark as viewed, and that idempotencyKey exists for view/reply retries. The described write/delete behavior is consistent with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false.

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?

A tight front-loaded summary sentence establishes scope and the key risk (view vs silent read), followed by a scannable action list. Despite covering twelve parameters and eight actions, every sentence carries behavioral information and none is 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?

With an action-dispatch tool, high parameter count, and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: per-action meaning, ordering guarantees (newest story/viewer first), destructive-action prerequisites, and named response fields like mediaFile and authorNotified. Nothing required to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real cross-field meaning: it defines what each `action` enum value does (the schema only says "See the list of actions"), why `confirm` must be true, and the notify/no-notify distinction that `view` and `authorNotified` hinge on. Remaining gaps (cursor/limit paging semantics) are already carried by the schema.

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 concrete verb+resource (read/answer WhatsApp stories) and enumerates the eight supported actions with their distinct semantics. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling post_story ("post with post_story"), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 conditional guidance for the risky actions: `view` is "Only when the user asked for it," `delete` only after user agreement, and stories arrive only for accounts with stories enabled. It names post_story as the alternative for publishing. It does not, however, contrast itself with adjacent read tools like list_messages or chat tools, so routing to this tool vs those is left to inference.

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