Contact QR code

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds the vCard 3.0 output format and the shared-profile defaulting behavior, but says nothing about file writing side effects, what happens if out_path exists, or why the operation is not idempotent — content the schema only partly covers.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the most important usage caveat. No filler, though the wording 'never asked for' is slightly cryptic and costs a word of clarity.

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?

For a 14-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description covers the payload type and defaulting but omits any mention of output behavior (inline SVG vs written file) or the SVG-free/png-Pro distinction, which the schema carries alone. Adequate but not complete on its own.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, including the shared-profile defaults for name, email, phone and address. The description restates the defaulting rule rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: make a QR code that adds a contact when scanned, with the vCard 3.0 format named. That distinguishes it from qr_wifi and qr_payment_sepa implicitly by payload type, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives one concrete usage rule ('for your own card pass nothing'), which resolves the main ambiguity around the 14 optional params. It does not say when to choose this tool over qr_create or the other QR siblings, leaving that inference to the agent.

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