Set bot presence

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

Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the prerequisite of a gateway connection, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or what happens if the connection is lost.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Change'. No fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 setter with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key requirement. It could mention the effect on existing presence, but the tool is straightforward enough that the description is adequate.

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 describes activity_text but not status. The description adds meaning by calling status a 'status dot' and activity_text 'custom status text', but it doesn't elaborate on the enum values. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but doesn't fully explain all 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 clearly states the action (change) and resource (bot's status dot and custom status text). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_voice_channel_status by focusing specifically on bot presence.

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 provides clear context by noting the gateway connection is maintained by default, implying the tool is ready to use without extra setup. No explicit alternatives or exclusions, but this is sufficient for a simple tool.

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