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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses important side effects: autoStart means automatically DMing strangers, editing the brief only invalidates an in-flight generation and pauses SPEAKER, and old candidates are neither deleted nor re-found, plus an organizer/login prerequisite. What it does not cover is return behaviour, defaults for optional parameters, or failure modes, so the behavioural picture is solid but not complete.

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?

Every sentence carries information and the critical warnings (autoStart = cold DM, SPEAKER must be started manually) come early, so there is little true padding. The telegraphic, punctuation-spliced Chinese makes it dense to the point of being hard to parse, and the branch logic for SPEAKER versus ATTENDEE is not visually structured, which slows an agent down.

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 an eight-parameter, annotation-free mutation tool with no output schema, the description is substantive: workflow, side effects, and brief semantics are all present. It remains incomplete on defaults for optional fields, on what a successful call returns, and on the create-versus-modify distinction that the title hints at, which an agent needs to avoid duplicate or conflicting plans.

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 only 13% (activityRef alone), so the description must compensate. It maps most of the remaining parameters informally ('数量/备选/节奏/过期' for targetCount/backupCount/intervalMinutes/inviteTtlHours), explains brief's ≤600-char cap and the extra LLM call when omitted, and clarifies autoStart semantics. However it never states defaults, allowed ranges, or the meaning of intervalMinutes versus inviteTtlHours beyond the ordering of a four-word list.

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 the resource (guest/audience invite plan) and enumerates exactly what the tool configures: counts, backups, cadence, expiry, and the selection brief. The verb 'configure' is softer than a precise CRUD verb, and the title ('建或改') carries the create-vs-update nuance, but an agent can still tell this apart from siblings like set_guest_invite_plan_status.

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 spells out the exact ordering for SPEAKER invites (get_activity_invites → update_guest_candidates → set_guest_invite_plan_status(start)), states that SPEAKER must be started manually, restricts autoStart to ATTENDEE, and requires reading back object/cadence/count to the user before proceeding. It also tells the agent when to reach for add_guest_candidates instead. This is explicit when/when-not plus alternatives.

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