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

Beyond annotations like readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, the description discloses significant behavioral details: autoStart only affects ATTENDEE and sends DMs to strangers, omitting brief triggers an extra LLM call with cost and delay, changing brief invalidates only the running candidate generation and pauses SPEAKER plans, and existing candidates are never cleared. This is substantial context the annotations alone do not 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 long but well-structured with labeled sections 【需要登录·主办方】【何时用】【组合链】【口径】 and numbered caveats. It front-loads the core purpose and tool chain before edge cases, and every sentence adds operational value rather than repeating schema or annotations.

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 8 parameters, very low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers prerequisites, tool sequencing, role-specific behavior, side effects, cost implications, confirmation obligations, and even references the returned 'speakers' field for pre-start review. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It maps targetCount, backupCount, intervalMinutes, inviteTtlHours, brief, role, and autoStart to their operational meanings, including the SPEAKER vs ATTENDEE distinction and the confirmation requirement. This compensates well for the sparse schema.

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 clear verb+resource pair: '建或改嘉宾/观众邀请计划' (create or modify the guest/audience invitation plan), and the 【何时用】 section explicitly says when to use it: '定这场活动怎么邀人'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools through the combination chain, especially set_guest_invite_plan_status(start), which actually starts sending.

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 provides an explicit when-to-use section and a complete tool sequence: set_guest_invite_plan → get_activity_invites → update_guest_candidates → set_guest_invite_plan_status(start). It also gives exclusion conditions, such as not passing autoStart unless the user explicitly requests automatic audience invites, and states that SPEAKER plans always require manual start.

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