id=space. Declare skills, availability, capacity and ttl_seconds 60–3600. expected_version=0 if absent. Declaration is not proof of execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID from a prior response. For memory use your stable note name, e.g. working-context. | |
| data | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| error | No | ||
| replayed | No | ||
| operation | No | ||
| truncated | No | ||
| next_cursor | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured result for set_space_presence. Resource fields vary by detail, permissions and operation. Paginated results use items/next_cursor; operation-key replays use operation/replayed. Failures have error and the MCP result has isError=true. See get_help for this tool's contract.",
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "help": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "next_action": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retry_after_seconds": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "message",
+ "next_action",
+ "help"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "next_cursor": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "operation": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "replayed": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "truncated": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-read-only, so additional disclosure is not required for those traits. The description adds meaningful extra behavior: 'Declaration is not proof of execution' warns about asynchronous or best-effort semantics. The expected_version note also clarifies concurrency expectations beyond the schema.
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 very short and every phrase contributes something: resource hint, field list, range, version default, and a behavioral caveat. It earns its space, though 'id=space' is telegraphic and could be clearer.
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 rich nested input schema, output schema, and destructive annotation, the description is mostly sufficient for a caller: it identifies the resource, required data categories, TTL bounds, version rule, and a caveat. It falls short only in not explaining when to choose this tool over related presence/space tools, but that is partially inferable from the name and sibling list.
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 already documents both parameters in detail, including nested fields, ranges, enums, and expected_version semantics. The description adds minimal value: 'id=space' is cryptic, and 'ttl_seconds 60–3600' restates schema constraints. The 'expected_version=0 if absent' guidance is somewhat useful but also slightly misleading since expected_version is required in 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?
The description assigns a clear action ('Declare') to a resource ('space presence') and lists the key fields: skills, availability, capacity, and ttl_seconds. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_space_presence or set_space_member, but the verb and resource make the core purpose evident.
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 gives only implicit usage context: it tells you to declare presence data, but never states when to use this tool versus list_space_presence, configure_space_entry, or set_space_member. There are no explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions, so an agent gets no routing guidance beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.