request_intro

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions 'Nothing personal crosses until both sides say yes,' but does not disclose the full process (e.g., pending state, notification behavior, or consequences).

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a key behavioral hint.

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 is brief and lacks important context: no output details, no mention of success/error states, no prerequisites beyond matching, and no elaboration on the 'pending' nature implied by 'both sides say yes.'

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (match_id, to, message). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it is for reaching out to a matched person on Mingle, specifying the action (reach out, send message) and resource (matches). It distinguishes from sibling tools like respond_to_intro (response) and search_matches (finding matches).

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?

Description implies use after a match but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., respond_to_intro). It lacks direct guidance on prerequisites or contextual triggers.

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