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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it changes the invitation from draft to live, creates a public link, and starts RSVP collection. It aligns with the annotations (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and does not contradict them.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence is a run-on and awkwardly combines the missing-field prerequisites and the reference to create_invitation, which costs some readability.

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?

The output schema and annotations carry some of the burden, so return format and safety properties do not need to be repeated. Still, the description lacks a clear statement of what invitationId is and what happens when an invite is already published, leaving the agent to infer part of the correct invocation.

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 0% and the description does not directly explain the sole parameter, invitationId, as the identifier of the draft invitation to publish. The list of needed data (couple names, date, time, venue) refers to invitation contents, not to input parameters, which can confuse an agent about what this tool actually accepts.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('put live'), names the resource ('draft invitation'), and states the effect ('public link' and 'start collecting RSVPs'). This clearly distinguishes it from creation/editing tools like create_invitation and create_form.

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 a concrete precondition: ask the user for missing invitation details and references create_invitation as the tool that reports missing data. However, it doesn't explicitly cover when not to call it (e.g., if the invitation is already live) or compare to alternatives, so it falls just short of fully explicit usage guidance.

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