add_agent_contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutual approval behavior and that it initiates a request, but does not cover error cases, permissions, or side effects like existing contacts.

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 with a single purpose sentence followed by structured args and returns. No wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the action and mutual case. It could mention edge cases or prerequisites but remains complete for most usage.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'handle' as 'The handle of the entity' and 'message' as 'Optional message'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions, but lacks formatting or constraint details.

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 'Send a contact request' and specifies the resource 'to another entity by handle'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'approve_contact_request' and 'respond_to_agent_contact_request' by noting the mutual approval behavior.

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?

It explains the action (initiating a contact request) and the condition for automatic approval (mutual). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_contact_request' or 'respond_to_agent_contact_request'.

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