send_coffee_chat_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no permissions/auth needed, no note on whether duplicate or repeat requests are allowed, no rate limits, and no mention of what happens after sending or whether it can be withdrawn. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the sequencing hint follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable: it names the action and the upstream step. It omits return/error behavior and constraints an agent would need to invoke confidently, but nothing it says is wrong or incomplete enough to block a call.

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 schema already documents receiver_id and the message length/personalization constraint, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

Specific verb ('Send') + resource ('coffee chat request') + target ('to a user'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like respond_coffee_chat or send_coffee_chat_message, though the object of the action differs clearly enough to distinguish them.

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 states a prerequisite/workflow ordering: 'Use this after finding contacts with find_coffee_contacts,' naming a concrete sibling. It does not cover when-not to use it (e.g., whether a request already exists, or how to follow up with respond_coffee_chat).

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