respond_to_intro

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the privacy behavior (details withheld until both approve), which is critical for correct invocation. It does not mention auth needs or side effects, but the simple nature of the tool mitigates this.

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 sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action, then provides context and privacy rule. Highly efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and simple action, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key behavioral rule. It does not explain return values, but for an action like responding to an intro, this is acceptable. Completeness is high for the tool's complexity.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying 'approve' maps to connecting and 'decline' to passing, and notes the message is optional, aiding correct parameter usage.

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 action 'respond to an introduction' on Mingle, specifies the context (AI matchmaking), and defines two clear outcomes (approve/decline). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like request_intro or search_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?

The description explicitly states when to use ('Someone's AI reached out') and implies a condition ('No details shared unless both sides say yes'), guiding the agent on appropriate usage. It could name alternative tools for more explicit guidance.

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