Set Relay Contact Card

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

Annotations already mark this as a write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent. The description adds the useful context that the operation can replace the authenticated agent's existing contact card, implying overwrite behavior. It does not describe what happens to unspecified fields or external side effects, but 'create or replace' conveys the key behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; 'Create or replace' immediately conveys the core action. It is concise, though arguably too terse to carry the missing usage and parameter guidance.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and an adjacent relay_update_contact_card sibling, this definition is incomplete. It lacks guidance on full-replacement semantics, required-field implications, and when to prefer this over the update sibling.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. The term 'Contact Card' gives some context for fields like first_name, last_name, and image_url, and the handle's schema pattern is visible, but the description adds no real meaning beyond the property names and constraints.

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 states a specific verb/resource: it creates or replaces the authenticated Agent's Contact Card. This distinguishes it from reads and contact-request operations, but it does not explicitly explain how 'set/replace' differs from the sibling relay_update_contact_card, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No usage guidance is provided: the description does not say when to use this tool instead of relay_update_contact_card, whether it is intended for full replacement while update is for partial changes, or any prerequisites. The agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone.

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