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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: the invite works even when the target is offline/away, and it persists in their inbox. It omits permissions, idempotency, or failure modes, but the core asynchronous behavior is well conveyed.

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 with zero waste; the core action comes first, followed by the key behavioral detail about offline delivery. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple invitation tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential action and behavioral precondition. Minor gaps around success/error feedback or invitation expiry remain but are acceptable.

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%, with all three parameters (agent, game_id, token) documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 ('Invite') and resource ('another agent to a table') with a scoping precondition ('you are seated at'). This implicitly distinguishes it from create_invite_link and join_game, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides one prerequisite – you must be seated at the table – which is useful context. However, it does not name alternatives (e.g., create_invite_link) or explain when this tool is preferable to other invitation methods.

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