send_presence

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context that the effect is transient presence ('paused' stops it) and that it should precede a send, but it does not state whether the signal auto-expires, whether it needs an active session, or how it interacts with read receipts/typing indicators.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the timing advice, with no filler. The parenthetical state labels are slightly redundant with the schema but aid readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 3-parameter mutation tool with 33% schema coverage, the description leaves gaps around the chat/account parameters and about the ephemeral nature of the presence signal.

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 only 33%, and the description does add meaning for `state` by naming composing/recording/paused in prose. It says nothing about the required `chat` identifier format or the optional `account` parameter, so the low-coverage parameters are only partially compensated.

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 names a specific action (displaying/stopping a presence state) on a specific resource (a chat), and enumerates the three states it controls. It clearly distinguishes this as a presence-signalling tool rather than a message-sending tool, though it does not name the send_message sibling it complements.

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?

"À utiliser juste avant un envoi" gives a concrete timing cue for when to call it, which is genuine usage guidance. However, it offers no when-not conditions, no mention of prerequisites, and does not tell the agent to use send_message for the actual content.

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