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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, the description earns credit by disclosing the concrete side effects: accepting grants the offered role plus permissions and auto-joins the colony if not already a member. It doesn't spell out whether decline is reversible or what a repeat call does, but the important mutation consequences are surfaced.

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 action and resource, followed by the side effects and the authorization constraint. 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 mutation tool with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies what's missing: who may call it and what accepting does. Only the idempotency/repeat-call behavior and the declined-invite end state remain unstated, which is a minor gap.

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%: the enum values, the deprecated invite_id alias, and the required invitation_id UUID are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb pair (accept/decline) and resource (moderator invite addressed to you), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like colony_invite_moderator and colony_revoke_mod_invite. An agent can tell at a glance which direction of the invite flow this handles.

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 gives clear context — this is the recipient-side response to a pending invite — and states the precondition that only the invite's recipient can respond. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., list_mod_invites to find one), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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