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

Goes well beyond the annotations by clarifying that the invite cannot be silently undone, that it does not delete the handoff or remove the owner's duty to answer, that recipients must accept before reading pages, and that repeated calls send another invite. This adds meaningful nuance around the destructive and non-idempotent hints, helping the agent understand the real consequences of the mutation.

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?

Front-loads the core action and then adds behavioral context in short, clear sentences. A few sentences are slightly repetitive (the non-undoable and repeat-invite points overlap), but nearly every sentence contributes useful information with no significant waste.

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 annotations covering destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world behavior, the description supplies the key missing context: recipient acceptance, irreversibility, non-deletion semantics, and repeat-call behavior. It does not cover invite expiry, revocation, or what happens when a recipient already has access, but those are secondary for an invite operation, and the schema covers the permission parameter.

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 50%, so the schema already documents recipient target fields and the permission enum with its meaning. The description adds a useful summary of the allowed recipient types, but does not explain the permission field, defaults, or edge cases beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries most of the parameter semantics.

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: invite people to a handoff you own. It is clearly an invite/grant operation, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like delegate_handoff or send_handoff. An agent can still tell what this tool does, though it must infer the boundary from the name and description alone.

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 an implied precondition ('a handoff you own') and notes that repeat calls send another invite, which helps avoid accidental duplicate invites. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative sibling such as delegate_handoff or send_handoff. Adequate but with a clear gap in routing guidance.

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