Send contact cards

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints, so the description's main contribution is that multiple cards are delivered 'in one message'. It adds no additional behavioral context about responses, failures, or permissions, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence containing only the essential operation and constraint. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details beyond the useful cardinality note.

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 schema richly documents recipient formats, accountId, mentions, idempotencyKey, and replyTo, making the tool callable. However, with no output schema and no mention of return behavior or when to prefer this over sibling send tools, the free-text description leaves some context gaps beyond structured data.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameter behavior. The description adds only marginal value by framing the contacts array as 'one contact card, or up to 20', which mostly restates the schema's minItems and maxItems.

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 states a specific action ('Send') on a distinct resource ('contact card') with an explicit cardinality ('one contact card, or up to 20'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like send_text, send_media, or send_location by payload type.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions are provided. The agent must infer from the tool name and sibling list that this is the right choice for contact-card payloads, rather than being told.

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