Create OmniChannel Presence Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is encoded. The description adds context about statusType semantics but does not disclose idempotency (despite idempotentHint=true), potential uniqueness constraints, or any side effects beyond creation. It provides some value but not rich behavioral detail beyond what annotations imply.

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 well-structured with a main sentence, bullet points for statusType, and a note about serviceChannels. It is appropriately sized and readable, though the statusType bullets could be slightly more compact without losing clarity.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and a follow-up action. It doesn't explain return values or error conditions, but those are not critical given the context. It provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 50%, and the description compensates for the undocumented parameters. It thoroughly explains statusType (with meaning of each enum) and serviceChannels (which channels are active for Busy). However, label and statusName are not elaborated beyond the schema's minimal descriptions, leaving a slight gap.

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 'Creates a Presence Status that agents can set to indicate their availability,' which is a specific verb + resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sf_assign_presence_status (which assigns) and sf_create_presence_configuration (which is a different config object).

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 explains when to use each statusType (Online, Busy, Offline) and that serviceChannels must be specified for Busy. It also explicitly suggests a next step: 'After creating, assign the status to profiles/permission sets with sf_assign_presence_status.' This gives clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools.

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