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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive): it discloses board caps, opt-outs, age rules, the 50-per-round limit, privacy ('addresses are never shown to anyone else'), and the child→parent address routing. The one gap is it doesn't fully explain what 'becomes a card' does if left unsent.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause and every subsequent clause adds substantive detail (roles, limits, privacy) rather than filler. It is dense and the Swedish jargon/parentheticals make it harder to parse, but nothing is wasted.

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 nested-row tool with four roles, parent routing and privacy rules, the description covers the operational essentials, and the presence of an output schema removes any need to explain return values. The unaddressed `extra` field is the main remaining gap.

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?

With 67% schema coverage, the description carries meaningful extra weight: it defines role semantics and the member default, explains that a child's row needs parentEmail and why, and ties groupIds to a förening's group. It leaves the `extra` param undocumented, so it doesn't fully compensate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it prepares an email invite round for a home, producing a card the person taps to send. The distinction between preparing and sending is made explicit, which sets it apart from messaging siblings, but it never names a competing sibling or explains why you'd pick it over e.g. manage_member.

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?

Usage is implied ('a home the person runs') and the home param note ('May be left out when the person runs exactly one') gives partial context. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for adding people by other means.

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