waha_leave_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without revealing side effects. It does not mention that leaving a group is irreversible, requires the current session to be a member, or what happens to group membership. This is insufficient for a mutation operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, such as how the current session is affected, error conditions, or return values. While the action is clear, an agent would not know the full implications of invoking this tool.

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 input schema has one required string parameter 'groupId', but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not elaborate on the format or meaning of 'groupId', though the name is somewhat self-explanatory. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation, adding no extra semantic value.

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 'Leave a WhatsApp group' clearly states the verb ('Leave') and the resource ('WhatsApp group'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_group' or 'add_group_participants' by focusing on the action of leaving.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., being a member of the group), exclusions, or comparison with related tools like 'remove_group_participants' (which removes others) or 'delete_group' (if it existed). The intended use case is implied but not explicitly stated.

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