Drive an existing presence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states it 'feeds new content' and is 'step 2 of 3', which implies mutation but not the clarity of whether it modifies state irreversibly. It doesn't omit major behavioral aspects, but lacks details like whether it is asynchronous, or if it returns a confirmation. This is a neutral, not very rich disclosure.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and step. It gives a concrete example of input ('words to say') without verbosity. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately targeted for the agent.

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?

Given the 2-parameter schema and a clear lifecycle context, the description is fairly complete. It doesn't have an output schema, but for a feeding operation, an agent can infer it returns nothing. It lacks details on return value or behaviour on non-existent presenceId, but this is minor given the overall simplicity.

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 50%: parameter 'text' has a description, but 'presenceId' does not. The description adds meaning by relating 'text' to 'words to say', which partly compensates for the schema gap; however, 'presenceId' remains semantically weak. Baseline is 3 since coverage is moderate.

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 verb 'feeds' and the resource 'presence', and it identifies its place in a 3-step process. It differentiates from siblings by mentioning 'spawnPresence' and 'retirePresence', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The title 'Drive an existing presence' also reinforces the action.

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 usage as step 2 of 3, after spawnPresence Illustrates when to use, but it doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. The context is clear enough to understand the lifecycle, but there is no mention of conditions to avoid using or of the sibling 'manifestHighlight'.

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