Thenvoi MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes permission requirements (owner/admin role), participant eligibility constraints, and the default role behavior. However, it lacks details on error conditions, rate limits, or idempotency, which would be useful for a mutation 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy. The parameter explanations are clearly formatted, and the entire description is appropriately sized for a tool with multiple constraints and parameters.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with permissions and constraints), no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral aspects well. A minor deduction because it doesn't mention potential error cases or side effects, which would enhance completeness for a mutation tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantic explanations for all three parameters: chat_id ('unique identifier of the chat room'), participant_id ('ID of the participant to add'), and role ('role to assign' with enum values and default behavior). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the specific action ('Add a participant to a chat room'), identifies the resource ('chat room'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remove_agent_chat_participant' or 'list_agent_chat_participants'. It specifies the types of participants that can be added (agents or users), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including prerequisites ('acting agent must be the owner or admin of the room'), eligible participants (sibling agents, global agents, owner), and a direct alternative for discovery ('Use list_agent_peers(not_in_chat=chat_id) to discover available participants'). It effectively differentiates usage from related tools.

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