pws_set_persona_availability

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true; the description adds context about global effect and preview default. However, it doesn't explain the confirmed flag or what preview returns, which would be useful for behavioral transparency beyond the annotations.

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 sentences that are front-loaded and concise, with no redundancy. Each sentence adds essential information, and the BETA warning is useful.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description discloses global impact but omits confirmation workflow and expected result. The 'BETA' warning is present, but the agent may lack understanding of how to execute actual changes or read preview results.

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 coverage is only 20%, so the description carries the burden. It explains availability enum and promotionId use for specific-promotion, but leaves personaId and confirmed semantics unexplained. 'Defaults to preview' partially covers preview parameter.

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 tool previews or changes a persona's availability, with specific scope (global within save) and differentiates from contract-level changes by saying 'not merely one contract'. The verb 'PREVIEW OR CHANGE' plus resource 'native alter ego definition' is specific.

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?

It implies use for global persona availability changes and distinguishes from contract-specific tools like pws_set_contract_persona. However, it lacks explicit when-not/alternatives guidance. 'Defaults to preview' suggests a preview-first workflow but doesn't say when to actually confirm.

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