update_agent_availability

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a mutation, not whether it requires authentication as the current agent, and not the significant side effect implied by 'away_and_reassigning'. The only behavioral nuance in the whole definition (idle changes never overwriting away_manual/away_and_reassigning) lives in the schema, not the description.

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?

It is short and front-loads the purpose, but a large share of the text is low-value noise (the raw HTTP path and 'Tags: Agents') rather than information an agent can act on. Brevity here comes from omission rather than efficiency.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should explain effects, preconditions, and the meaning of the destructive-sounding 'away_and_reassigning' state. None of that is present, leaving an agent unable to predict what calling it does beyond flipping a field.

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%, with both enums documented in detail, including the non-obvious interaction of 'source' with the away states. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Update Current Agent Availability') plus the endpoint PUT /api/v1/agents/me/availability, so it's clear this sets the calling agent's own availability rather than another agent's. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling update_status, leaving ambiguity about which tool to pick for status changes.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — no mention of when to prefer this over update_status or update_agent, and no note that the 'source' field should be omitted for manual changes. The only usage-adjacent content is an HTTP path and a tag label.

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