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

Adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the owner can re-invite after 7 days, which tells the agent the action is reversible with a delay. It also gives key provenance ("from register_agent"), but the framing "Needs your api_key" is misleading because the schema marks that parameter as optional and only needed when no Authorization header can be sent. Annotations already declare non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world.

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 with no filler. The ordering is slightly off — the auth prerequisite leads before the actual action — but nothing is wasted.

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?

Adequate for a two-parameter mutation whose annotations and schema are rich, but it omits what happens on failure (e.g., no pending invite, wrong team) and does not state the result of a successful decline. No output schema exists, so the description is the only place that could have covered the outcome.

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 100%, so the schema already defines both parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description adds useful provenance for api_key (obtained from register_agent) but overstates it as required, which conflicts with the schema's "Optional" wording and could push an agent to pass it unnecessarily.

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 ("Decline a team invite"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling accept_team_invite. It does not explicitly name the alternative, but the action is unambiguous for an agent scanning the tool list.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent must infer this is the tool for rejecting a pending invite. The 7-day re-invite note is a consequence, not a when-to-use rule, and no preconditions or error cases are described.

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