Создать визитку

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, externally-visible operation. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on whether the vCard becomes immediately active, whether existing vCards in the campaign are affected, or any limit on how many vCards a campaign may have.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification rather than exemplary 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?

This is a high-complexity mutation with 18 parameters, 8 required, no output schema, and only two structural annotations. The description leaves out the campaign-prerequisite relationship, the effect of creation on existing vCards, and how it relates to list_vcards/delete_vcards, so it is not complete enough for correct invocation in edge 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% across all 18 parameters, including the API-specific work_time format and metro_station_id reference, so the schema carries the semantics well. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning (e.g., which address fields are jointly required), which makes the baseline 3 correct.

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 names a specific verb ('Создать') and resource ('виртуальную визитку') and adds scope ('для кампании'), so the agent knows this creates a vCard bound to a campaign. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings such as list_vcards or delete_vcards, which is what would be needed for a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that an existing campaign_id is required), and no mention of the related list_vcards/delete_vcards siblings. The agent must infer everything about applicability from the name alone.

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