create_contact_request

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the return type (JSON string) but does not discuss mutation aspects, error conditions, idempotency, or authentication needs. Minimal behavioral context.

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: one sentence for purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with purpose.

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's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects), the description covers the basics well. However, it lacks broader context such as error handling, asynchronous behavior, or how this fits with sibling tools. An output schema exists, so return values are partially documented, but no further completeness.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the input schema: it specifies the handle format (with/without @ prefix), requiredness, and max character count for message. Schema coverage is effectively 100% from the description, and it provides constraints not in the schema.

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 'Send a contact request to another user,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_contact_request and cancel_contact_request.

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 the tool (to initiate a contact request) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative guidance. Context from sibling tools suggests related operations, but the description lacks direct comparison.

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