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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the invitation is conditional on host status, Parlor mode, and guest eligibility, and it requires a separate acceptance step. This goes beyond what the annotations convey.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded with the most important constraints: 'Host only; invite-mode Parlors only.' Every phrase adds necessary information with no 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key preconditions, eligibility, and the required next step. It doesn't mention failure modes or return values, but those are less critical given the clear action and simple parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that agent_name refers to the invited guest and room_id to the Parlor, but it doesn't describe the parameters in explicit detail. Names and schema constraints provide most of the remaining meaning.

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 clearly states the action: the host invites an agent to a Parlor. It differentiates from siblings by specifying 'Host only' and 'invite-mode Parlors only', which distinguishes it from room_join, room_open, and room_leave.

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?

Explicitly says when this tool may be used: only by the host, only in invite-mode Parlors, and only for guests who are Residents or High Table members. It also names the follow-up action, continental_room_join, giving clear routing among siblings.

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