direct.hf.attach_vcard_to_ads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is a mutation tool, yet nothing is disclosed about required permissions/ownership of the vcard, idempotency, what happens to already-attached vcards, or what occurs when the '(if supported)' condition fails.

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?

A single short sentence, so it is not bloated, but the 'Human-friendly:' filler and the hedging '(if supported)' consume the little space available without adding information the agent can act on.

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?

A write-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0 required parameters, and only a third of its parameters documented. The description does not compensate for these gaps and leaves the agent unable to reason about safety or the dry_run/apply workflow.

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 only 33% (account_id and direct_client_login). The description names vcard_id and ads implicitly but says nothing about the apply and dry_run flags or the ad_ids array, leaving the two parameters that control whether the write actually happens completely unexplained.

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 (attach) and resource (vcard id) and target (ads), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling attach_sitelinks_to_ads and attach_callouts_to_ads. The odd 'Human-friendly:' prefix adds no meaning, but the core operation is unambiguous.

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 only conditional cue is the parenthetical '(if supported)', which hints at a capability gate but never tells the agent when to choose this tool over attach_sitelinks_to_ads/attach_callouts_to_ads. No prerequisites, no mention of which ads qualify, no exclusion guidance.

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