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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: it clarifies the result is an inert draft that 'reaches no one' (reinforcing destructiveHint=false despite being a write), flags that Evite's guest-copying behavior is unknown, and states the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with access). This is exactly the kind of side-effect and prerequisite disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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 keeps the total short, with each sentence carrying distinct information (scope, constraints, uncertainty, safety, auth). Slightly sprawling across five clauses, but nothing is filler.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema and available annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is created, that it is inert, who it is restricted to, and the auth requirement. No material gap remains.

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 documents event_id as coming from list_events. The description does not add format, source, or constraint detail for the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Copy one of your current or past invitations into a new draft') and identifies the underlying operation ('Duplicate Invitation'). An agent can distinguish this from evite_create_event and evite_update_event without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear when-it-applies and when-it-does-not constraints: only invitations from your own account, not events from the previous version of Evite, and points to list_guests to resolve the guest-copying question. It lacks an explicit alternative-tool comparison, but the applicability conditions are well specified.

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