Share Relay Contact Card

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent side effect, and the description adds useful context that the shared card is the authenticated agent's configured contact card rather than an arbitrary card. However, it does not disclose whether this creates a visible chat message, what happens on success, or any failure conditions. This is minimal additional behavioral context.

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 concise sentence with no filler. The core action and target are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter, low-complexity tool, the essentials of what is shared and where are present. However, with no output schema and no mention of return behavior, prerequisites like an existing chat, or whether the action produces a visible message, an agent is left to infer the outcome. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the single parameter chat_id is largely self-explanatory from its name and UUID format. The description's phrase 'into a Chat' clarifies that chat_id identifies the target chat, adding some semantics beyond the schema. Still, the description does not explicitly document the parameter or edge cases, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Share'), a specific resource ('the authenticated Agent's configured Contact Card'), and a target ('a Chat'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It differentiates itself from sibling contact-card management tools like relay_get_contact_card and relay_set_contact_card, and from generic messaging tools like relay_send_message.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or refer to sibling tools such as relay_get_contact_card for configuration or relay_send_message for normal messages. There is effectively no usage guidance beyond the stated action.

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