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

Beyond annotations that mark this as a non-destructive, idempotent mutation, the description discloses the personal connector token requirement, the card-swap precondition, specific refusal codes, duplicate-invite behavior, and the two-step no-op-then-confirm model. These details are consistent with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false.

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?

The purpose and precondition are front-loaded, and the additional error, idempotency, and confirm-flow detail is justified for this two-step mutation. The sentence summarizing return values is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, which keeps it from a top score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers preconditions, refusal modes, idempotency, authentication, two-step confirmation, and a brief return summary. With annotations and an output schema also present, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that eventId and boothId should match booth_connect and ties confirm to confirmToken, but those relationships are also covered by the schema descriptions, so it adds workflow context rather than new parameter-level 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it takes the booth's side-event invite for the person after a card swap. It also says the invite lands in the person's inbox and ties the action to booth_connect, so it is distinguishable from siblings such as booth_connect and booth_claim_swag.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition: use only after the person has swapped cards with this booth via booth_connect, and pass eventId and boothId as booth_connect was given them. It also names when the tool refuses (NOT_CONNECTED, UNKNOWN_UNLOCK), handles already-held invites, and explains the two-step confirm flow.

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