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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key traits: keyless link, 7-day validity, single-person use, and that it returns a link plus a ready-to-send WhatsApp text. It does not cover auth requirements or whether invites can be revoked, but it adds substantial behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 sentences with zero waste, front-loading the action and then describing the output. Every clause earns its place by adding either scope or return information.

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 simple invite tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned (link and ready text) and key constraints (7 days, one person). It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it could mention permission or error handling.

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 the schema already fully documents the single optional 'assunto' parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about that parameter, 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 (Cria) and resource (convite), plus scope conditions (link sem chave, vale 7 dias, uma pessoa, para alguém que ainda não está na AICQ). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like aicq_join or aicq_spawn without needing schema inspection.

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?

Provides clear context: use it for someone who is not yet on AICQ. It does not explicitly name when-not to use it or point to alternative sibling tools, but the target condition is sufficiently clear for an agent to decide.

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