Assign Presence Status to Profiles/Permission Sets

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the useful behavioral note about agent selection, but doesn't disclose details like whether existing assignments are overwritten or appended, or whether it requires special permissions. With annotations covering the core safety profile, the description provides minimal additional context.

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 compact and appropriately front-loaded. The first sentence states the core functionality, followed by a behavioral note and parameter clarifications. No redundant information is present, and the structure with line breaks for parameters makes it easy to parse.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, the assignment prerequisite, and the parameter constraints. It doesn't describe the return value (but no output schema exists), nor does it mention required permissions or potential errors. There's a minor inconsistency between 'Profile names' in the description and 'Profile API names' in the schema, which could confuse. Overall, it's sufficient for correct invocation 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?

The input schema already describes all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for profiles, clarifying the format for permissionSets, and stating the 'either/or' requirement that is not enforced by the schema (which only requires statusName). This extra guidance helps avoid invalid calls.

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 tool's function: 'Grants access to a Presence Status for the specified Profiles and/or Permission Sets.' It uses a specific verb ('grants access') and resource ('Presence Status'), and the title further clarifies the target. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sf_create_presence_status (which creates the status) and sf_assign_skill_to_agent (which assigns a different entity).

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 practical context: 'Agents can only select presence statuses that are assigned to their profile or permission set,' explaining why this assignment is necessary. It also specifies a precondition: 'Either profiles or permissionSets must be provided (or both).' However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

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