send_contact_card

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

The description reveals that a vCard is synthesized from name+phone when vcard is omitted, which is behavioral detail beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.) and adds useful context about dynamic 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?

A single, well-structured sentence conveys the purpose and key behavior. Every word adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No unnecessary text.

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?

The description covers the core behavior adequately for a simple tool with fully described parameters and annotations. It does not describe error handling or return values (no output schema), but the synthesis behavior is clearly documented. Slightly above average completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the description still adds value by explaining the conditional synthesis relationship between vcard, name, and phone. It clarifies that vcard overrides the synthesis, enriching the parameter semantics beyond individual field 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 clearly states the tool sends a contact card and explains the synthesis behavior when vcard is omitted. The name and description together uniquely identify its purpose, distinguishing it from sibling tools like send_message or send_file.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to send a contact card) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools for sending various content types, some guidance on tool selection would be beneficial.

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