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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the 72-hour validity, the requirement for host's api_key, and the revoke_old behavior. However, it omits potential side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving gaps.

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 concise with two short sentences. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every part adds value with no wasted words.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers core behavior but lacks error handling details, prerequisites (e.g., must be host), and what the response contains. It is minimally adequate.

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 low (33%), but the description adds meaning for revoke_old by explaining its effect. For room_id and api_key, it adds little beyond the schema. The explanation of revoke_old partially compensates for low coverage.

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 that the tool issues a new 72-hour invitation code by the host. The verb '발급한다' and resource '초대코드' are specific, and the tool's function is distinct from related siblings like baton_join or baton_kick, though not explicitly differentiated.

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 implies usage context (host issuing new invite) and explains the revoke_old parameter effect. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like baton_revoke, nor mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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