Share a contact mesh-wide

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds the valuable detail 'Costs airtime', which discloses a cost not captured in annotations. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word is essential; no redundancy or filler.

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 simple schema (one parameter, fully described), annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, effect, and a cost. It is slightly lacking in mentioning potential failure modes or prerequisites, but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'target' described as 'contact name or hex public-key prefix'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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 uses the specific verb 'broadcast' and clearly identifies the resource ('a contact's advert' across the mesh). It explains the effect (other nodes can route to the contact) and distinguishes from sibling tool 'broadcast_advert' by focusing on sharing a specific contact rather than the node's own advert.

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 the use case (propagating a contact's route) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'broadcast_advert' or 'export_contact'. No 'when not to use' or prerequisite information is provided.

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