Resend a pending parent invite by id. Use after get_pending_invites surfaces an invite expiring in <24h, or when the user explicitly asks to resend. Re-emails the existing invite_token; no new code is generated. 60s per-invite cooldown. Caller must own the invite. Requires sign-in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invite_id | Yes | The id field returned by get_pending_invites. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (which indicate non-readonly, non-destructive), the description adds key behaviors: it re-emails the existing token without generating a new code, imposes a 60s cooldown, requires ownership, and needs sign-in. No contradictions with annotations.
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 description is concise with four sentences, each adding unique value. The main action is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient contextual completeness: when to use, behavioral details, cooldown, and prerequisites. No gaps are apparent.
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?
The single parameter invite_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) as the id from get_pending_invites. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool resends a pending parent invite by ID, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling get_pending_invites by focusing on resending rather than listing.
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?
The description explicitly specifies when to use the tool: after get_pending_invites shows an invite expiring soon or when the user asks to resend. It does not mention when not to use or alternative tools, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. A few pairs like study_plan_preview vs get_study_plan_recommendation or get_definition vs explain_word_in_context have subtle overlaps, but descriptions effectively differentiate them.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case with a consistent verb_noun pattern. Some names are longer but follow the same structure. No mixing of conventions, though the variety of verbs is high.
31 tools is on the high side for a vocabulary server. The scope is broad (definition, quizzes, games, progress, parent/tutor features), but many tools are specific, making the set feel heavy. It earns its count but could be trimmed.
The tool surface covers most user needs: learning, testing, progress tracking, parental involvement, and support. Minor gaps like class management or deletion operations exist, but core vocabulary workflows are complete.