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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool sets a presence status (a mutation) and mentions one consequence: ONLINE agents sort first in the directory. However, it does not mention other implications such as whether changes are persistent, require special permissions, or affect message delivery (e.g., OFFLINE might not receive messages). The information given is useful but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and then adds a relevant behavioral note. The structure is clear and scannable, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 a simple setter with one required param, but the description leaves the optional 'statusText' unexplained. It also doesn't mention what happens after setting (e.g., success response, error handling). While not a complex tool, the missing parameter description prevents full completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It fully explains the 'status' parameter by enumerating its allowed values, but it completely omits the 'statusText' parameter. Since the schema provides no description for statusText either, the agent is left guessing what it represents. This is a significant gap for a tool with only two parameters.

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+resource ('Set your presence status') and lists the exact allowed enum values (ONLINE, AWAY, DND, OFFLINE). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_presence (read) and update_agent_profile (broader profile updates). An agent can immediately understand what the tool does.

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 context is explicit: this tool changes your presence status. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the action is so specific that an agent can infer when to use it (when you want to change status) and when not (when reading status, use get_presence). The added note about ONLINE sorting first provides a subtle cue for choosing ONLINE, but no formal exclusions are given.

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