create_invite_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no required role/permission, no token expiry or lifecycle, no confirmation that it only creates (not sends) the invitation, no indication of what the response contains. Only the POST verb implies mutation.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and fine, but it is followed by a long keyword-stuffing block that repeats the same terms ('create invitation, add invitation, new invitation, make invitation, write invitation') with no informational value. The useful content is roughly one line out of many.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain permissions, the meaning of 'uses', and how the created token is consumed. None of that is present, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently beyond guessing.

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% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The most important field, 'uses' (presumably how many times the invite token can be redeemed), and the optional groupId/householdId scoping are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 ('Create invitation', 'Create Invite Token') and gives the HTTP route POST /api/households/invitations, so the agent knows what the tool does. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like email_invitation, get_invite_tokens, or create_api_token — the keyword blob lists generic terms ('create', 'add', 'new', 'make', 'write') instead.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus email_invitation (which presumably sends the invite) or get_invite_tokens (which lists them). The only routing signal is the 'Households: Invitations' grouping and the endpoint path, which the agent must infer.

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