iva_conference_presence_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the high-level actions but does not explain side effects, destructiveness of stop, permission requirements, state dependencies, or what happens to a conference when presence control starts or stops. This is minimal for a mutating control tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It quickly conveys the tool's purpose and main actions. The version note is minor but not distracting. It could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, but it is well-structured.

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?

This tool has six parameters, two nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description offers no guidance on how the parameters relate to the actions, what startData or confirmData should contain, or which IDs are needed for each operation. An agent would struggle to construct a correct call beyond selecting the action enum value.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about startData, confirmData, presenceControlId, or conferenceSessionId beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool's domain ('conference presence control') and the three core operations: start, stop, and confirm attendance. It uses a specific resource and action set, which distinguishes it from sibling conference tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative conference tools, nor does it mention prerequisites, whether a conference session must already exist, or when start versus stop versus confirm should be invoked. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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