send_contact

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

Annotations indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation, and the description is consistent with that. However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation flags—e.g., what happens to the sent card, whether permissions are needed, or side effects. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool's name.

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 a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately short for the action, though it lacks useful structure or elaboration. It earns partial credit for brevity but not for content richness.

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?

With 5 parameters (3 required) and an output schema, the description is far from sufficient. It doesn't cover required fields, behavior, or return values. The tool is effectively under-documented for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter details. It doesn't explain that 'chat' is the destination, 'phone' and 'first_name' form the card, or that 'silent' controls notification behavior. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Отправить визитку контакта' translates to 'Send a contact card,' which clearly states a specific action (send) and resource (contact card). This differentiates it from sibling send_* tools like send_message or send_file, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The user must infer usage from the name alone.

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