away

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

The annotations already convey read-write, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful scope that the status belongs to the current user, but it does not disclose additional side effects, prerequisites, or edge cases such as exactly what happens when clearing.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence states the purpose and scope first, then the operations and types. There is no filler or redundant introduction.

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 low-complexity tool with full parameter schema coverage and an output schema, the description is complete enough. Action-specific requirements are covered by the schema, so the agent has what it needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents action, type, from, and until, including action-specific requirements. The description's type list repeats the schema enum and adds no new parameter-level 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 identifies the resource ('current user's away status') and the supported operations ('getting, setting, and clearing'), with the allowed types listed. No sibling tool covers away status, so it is readily distinguishable.

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 clear, immediate context: this is the tool for managing the current user's away status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but none of the sibling tools addresses away status, so the guidance is sufficient.

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