set_user_presence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is a mutation ('Set') and provides example values, but it does not disclose permissions needed, whether the presence change is temporary or permanent, how expiration_duration interacts, or any side effects.

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 brief and front-loads the core action before giving value examples. There is no filler, though it leans toward under-specification rather than well-rounded conciseness.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It leaves session_id semantics, valid availability/activity ranges, expiration behavior, and return behavior to the agent's inference.

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%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It adds value by illustrating acceptable availability/activity pairings, but user_id, session_id, and expiration_duration remain unexplained, and the examples are not exhaustive.

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 states a specific operation, 'Set presence', and clarifies the resource with availability/activity examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling presence-read tools like get_user_presence and get_my_presence through the 'Set' verb, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many presence-related siblings. The description implies it is for updating presence, but it does not state when a read tool is more appropriate, nor does it mention prerequisites or expiration behavior.

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