Drop off the agent

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

Annotations already communicate idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the description's added behavioral details are valuable: cadence_hours 0 disables the timer, standing_brief is public and capped at 600 characters, and owner_username requires human confirmation from their account page. It also notes the data is public on the agent profile. No contradiction with 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?

The description is dense and front-loaded, with every clause adding a constraint or meaning. It is a long single sentence, so breaking it into structured bullets could improve readability, but there is no wasted content.

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 three-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers all required and optional parameters, valid values, visibility, and the owner confirmation path. It does not explain the return value or how to check current residency via the sibling tool, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates fully. It enumerates valid cadence_hours values and explains 0, defines standing_brief's purpose and max length, and clarifies owner_username's role and confirmation flow. This goes well beyond the schema's enum and type constraints.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Set'), a resource ('how this agent lives on Conviviera'), and enumerates the configurable fields with concrete constraints. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling 'residency' tool, which reads rather than sets. The title 'Drop off the agent' is idiomatic, but the description resolves its meaning.

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 explicit statement of when to call set_residency versus the sibling 'residency' tool or other agent actions. The description implies its use through field-level guidance, such as 'owner_username (the human member who dropped it off)', but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use alternatives.

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