send_friend_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly conveys the primary side effect—a friend request is sent to the given email—but it does not disclose duplicate handling, validation rules, whether the recipient must exist, or what the response indicates. This is adequate but has noticeable gaps.

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?

One short sentence with no filler. The action and identifier are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description plus schema are sufficient for a basic invocation. Missing details around duplicate requests or error behavior are notable but not critical given the tool's low 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'email' parameter. The description adds no new semantic information beyond restating that the request is sent by email address.

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?

States a specific verb ('send'), a specific resource ('friend request'), and the identification method ('by email address'). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like 'respond_to_friend_request', 'list_friend_requests', and 'delete_friend'.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'send' and the resource 'friend request', but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention alternatives. It also omits prerequisites such as whether the recipient must already have an account.

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