xmpp_set_chat_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important constraints (allowlisted JID, fixed recipient, request_id condition) but omits operational details such as error handling, idempotency, or connection requirements. The term 'Publish' implies a side effect, but the description does not elaborate on what the agent should expect.

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 three concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: purpose, allowed state values, and request_id guidance. There is no wasted text.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and parameter semantics. It lacks a few edge-case details (e.g., error behavior, exact output), but the output schema likely fills that gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 0%, and the schema has no enums or descriptions. The description compensates fully by enumerating valid state values ('active, composing, paused, inactive, or gone') and explaining when to pass request_id ('when the peer preserves XMPP threads'). This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Publish an XEP-0085 chat state to the single allowlisted JID.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like xmpp_send_message and xmpp_poll_messages by focusing on chat state publication.

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 gives clear context: the recipient is allowlisted and cannot be overridden, and request_id should be passed when the peer preserves XMPP threads. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or provide exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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