waha_set_presence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Set' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, affects other sessions, has side effects, or provides confirmation. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, mutation operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and output expectations. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral transparency.

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 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'presence status' which aligns with the 'presence' parameter but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through schema alone.

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 ('Set') and the resource ('your presence status') with specific values ('online/offline'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'waha_get_presence' which retrieves rather than sets presence, leaving room for slight ambiguity in sibling context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or contextual constraints. With sibling tools like 'waha_get_presence' and various session management tools, there's no indication of when setting presence is appropriate versus other status-related actions.

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