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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the concrete side effects: a changed address 'revokes the old link and automatically sends a renewed invitation,' an unchanged address 'sends nothing,' and the caller should 'report invitationSent truthfully.' These specifics explain what destructiveHint and idempotentHint mean in practice and are consistent with them.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, each one carrying real information (scope, side effects, return-value guidance). No filler.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral and response context, notably the invitationSent return signal and the revoke/resend consequence. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the email is owner-supplied and the traveler ID must be exact, but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (correct/update) plus resource (a pending traveler's email) with explicit scope: 'one pending, unaccepted trip traveler's email.' The 'pending, unaccepted' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling traveler tools like traveler_add, traveler_assign, and trip_travelers.

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?

States the precondition clearly ('after the owner supplies the exact traveler ID and new email') and implicitly excludes accepted travelers via 'pending, unaccepted.' It does not name an alternative tool for non-pending travelers, so it stops short of full when-not routing.

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