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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the divergent draft (permanent delete) vs published (archive) semantics, that invite links stop working, that guests drop out of counts and RSVP totals, that the host can restore them on the website, the phone-allowance edge case, and that guests are not notified. This is exactly the mutation-impact context an agent needs.

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-loaded with the trigger condition, then the behavioral consequences, then the sibling routing. Dense and largely waste-free, though the middle sentence stacks several clauses and could be split for faster scanning.

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 destructive mutation, the description covers reversibility, side effects, notification behavior, and input sourcing. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is correctly omitted. Nothing needed to invoke this safely is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents event_id (with its disambiguation from invitation_id) and the 1–50 invitation_ids bound. The description adds only provenance guidance (get ids from lemonvite_list_guests), which is helpful but not a substantive semantic addition.

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+resource ('guests taken off a Lemonvite invitation') and immediately distinguishes the two operating modes (draft vs published), which an agent cannot infer from the name alone. It is clearly differentiated from lemonvite_add_guests and lemonvite_remove_contacts.

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?

Explicitly names the source of the input ('Get invitation_ids from lemonvite_list_guests') and gives an explicit exclusion plus the alternative: 'Do not remove a guest just to fix their details; use lemonvite_update_guests instead.' That is textbook when/when-not/alternative routing.

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