invite_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action but omits critical details like whether the user receives a notification, if the invite can be rescinded, or if rate limits apply.

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 single sentence is efficient, but it lacks substantive context. While concise, it is under-specified for a tool with no annotations and no output schema, making it marginally adequate.

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 simplicity (two string params, no output schema), the description could be considered complete in a minimal sense. However, it fails to mention typical behaviors like sending an invitation event, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., being a room admin).

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions exist, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient for parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('Invite') and resource ('user to a Matrix room'), clearly distinguishing it from related tools like 'join_room' (self-join) or 'send_message' (sending content).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as requiring room membership or permissions. No explicit context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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