whatsapp_set_presence

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real semantic context beyond them: what 'available' actually does (shows online to contacts) and that it returns a success confirmation. It omits any auth/rate-limit notes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the routing rule, then the return note. No filler.

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 single-parameter presence toggle with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete and even notes the return confirmation. It doesn't address persistence or when the state reverts, a minor gap for an open-world mutation.

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% and the single enum ('available'/'unavailable') is already documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description partly compensates by explaining the effect of the 'available' value, but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Set this account as available or unavailable') and names the sibling it is not ('for a typing indicator in one chat, use whatsapp_set_chat_presence'). An agent can distinguish it from whatsapp_set_chat_presence without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this for account-level presence, use whatsapp_set_chat_presence for a per-chat typing indicator. That is a clear when-to-use plus a named alternative.

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