Создать визитку

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'Визитки неизменяемы — чтобы поменять, нужно удалить и создать заново' (vcards are immutable — to change, you must delete and recreate). This goes beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the immutability constraint, which is essential for the agent to understand the consequences of creation. Annotations don't contradict this; they are consistent with a create operation.

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 concise: two sentences. The first states the purpose, the second adds the critical immutability constraint. It's front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words. However, it could have been slightly more structured by mentioning the required campaignId, but that's in the schema.

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 the tool has 14 parameters, 6 required, and no output schema, the description is relatively thin. It doesn't explain what the response looks like (though no output schema exists, so the agent might need guidance on return values). It also doesn't mention any side effects beyond immutability, such as whether creation requires specific permissions or if there are rate limits. The immutability note is valuable, but for a complex creation tool with many parameters, more context could be provided, such as typical usage patterns or validation rules.

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 57%, so the schema documents many parameters but leaves some (house, street, building, apartment, contactEmail, contactPerson, ogrn) without descriptions. The description itself doesn't add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the workTime format example in the schema, but the description doesn't elaborate on any parameters. Since coverage is moderate, the description could have compensated but doesn't, so a 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Создаёт' = creates) and the resource ('виртуальную визитку в кампании' = virtual business card in a campaign). It distinguishes from siblings like get_vcards and delete_vcards by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so it doesn't fully differentiate from other create tools like create_text_campaign or create_sitelinks_set, though the resource is specific enough.

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 implies when to use it (when you need to create a vcard) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. It doesn't state prerequisites like needing a campaignId or that the campaign must exist. The context of sibling tools suggests there are related operations (get_vcards, delete_vcards) but no explicit routing is given.

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