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

Annotations already signal this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent, so the description's main added value is the provider-support qualifier and the explicit-request restriction. It does not detail what happens for unsupported providers or failed updates, and no annotation contradiction is present.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the usage restriction. Every clause earns its place; there is no redundant restating of the title or schema.

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 tool with one enum parameter and a rich account_id description, the combination of schema and description is mostly sufficient. It includes the essential provider-support and explicit-request context, though it could have added a sentence about unsupported-provider behavior or the visible effect of the call.

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 account_id thoroughly, but the required 'presence' parameter has no description and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented required parameter; it does not explain the meaning of values like 'restricted_online'.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set ... presence', and scopes it to providers that support it (LinkedIn Classic, WhatsApp, Telegram). It also states the narrow trigger ('explicit presence request'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like messaging_set_composing or messaging_set_chat_state.

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 a clear usage condition: only call for an explicit presence request, and only when the provider supports presence. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for chat state or composing, but the exclusionary 'only for an explicit presence request' is enough for an agent to select this tool correctly.

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