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

Beyond the single annotation (destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that admin permission is required, that a human secretary is involved, that contact information is not exchanged, that a receipt is only ticket progress and not proof of delivery/acceptance/registration, and that changes require re-confirmation. This is rich behavioral context that materially affects how an agent should use the tool.

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 dense and front-loads the critical constraints (permission, manual relay, activity state), then covers receipt semantics and the preview workflow. It is efficient, though the single bracketed run-on style could be easier to parse.

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 complex, stateful, permissioned tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the description covers most of what an agent needs: eligibility, privacy behavior, receipt meaning, and the two-step confirmation flow. The missing link parameter and lack of explicit parameter formats are the main gaps.

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 for all five parameters. It explains the previewHash/preview workflow and implies activityRef, userId, and note, but it mentions '填写链接' (fill in link) even though no link parameter exists in the schema. This mismatch and the lack of per-parameter detail leave significant ambiguity.

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 a specific verb and resource: submitting a designated cloud user, link, and note to a human secretary for relay invitation. It distinguishes this from direct invitation siblings by emphasizing '人工转达' (manual relay) and '不交出联系方式' (does not hand over contact info). The scope constraint ('仅已发布未开场的公开活动') further sharpens its identity.

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 gives clear when-to-use conditions: only for published but not-yet-started public activities, and it explains the preview then confirm workflow with previewHash and preview=false. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this, but the operational guidance is strong.

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