waha_star_message

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

The description discloses the core state change (star/unstar) but does not mention idempotency, error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when the message is not found. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to give sufficient behavioral context beyond the primary effect.

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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the operation, exemplifying conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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?

The tool is fairly simple, but the description is minimal. It does not explain what starring means in the context of WhatsApp (e.g., marking a message as important), what the return value might be, or any side effects. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should have provided more context, but it provides almost none.

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 star parameter is described in the schema (true to star, false to unstar), but chatId and messageId have no schema descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning for these parameters, and with only 33% schema coverage, it does not compensate for the missing details. The agent must rely on generic naming conventions to infer their meaning.

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 clearly states the action (star/unstar) and the target (a message), using a specific verb+resource structure. It is distinct from all sibling tools, which deal with sending, deleting, reacting, or group management, none of which cover starring.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites, and no explicit exclusions. It simply states the action without any situational advice, so the agent has to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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