Send Luma event invites

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds that this is a 'soft' invitation, meaning it's not a forced registration, and mentions it sends via email and SMS when linked. It does not disclose side effects like whether invitations can be sent only once, if there are rate limits, or what happens if a guest is already invited. However, the annotations already indicate it's not read-only and not destructive. The description does add a confirmation requirement shown to the user, which is a behavioral trait not in annotations. Overall, it adds some context (soft, channels, confirmation step) beyond the annotations, but it doesn't go deep into edge behaviors. With openWorldHint=true, it's expected that the tool might have external side effects, and the description mentions SMS and email sending, which covers that. It's average: better than nothing but not rich on behavioral details like idempotency or failure modes.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and channels, and then explains the flow including a confirmation step. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it does, the second explains the user experience and safety measure (confirmation). No padding or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity (sending emails/SMS), the description covers the key aspects: the invitation is soft (recipients choose), channels (email/SMS), and the confirmation step that requires `confirmed=true`. It mentions showing event, recipient count, and message before confirmation, which covers the important interaction. It does not mention how to construct the `guests` array in detail, but the schema handles that. It doesn't mention any limitations like invite expiration or SMS only if linked, which is mentioned. The description is fairly complete for a tool that sends invites, given the schema provides the required parameters. It lacks details on response or success/failure behavior, but since no output schema exists, the description could have hinted at what happens on success, but that's not strictly required. It's a minor gap. Overall, it's above average because it covers the workflow and key constraints.

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 only 25% because only the 'confirmed' parameter has a description ('Must be true only after explicit user confirmation.'). The description adds context about the `guests` array (that they choose whether to register) and mentions 'Show the event, recipient count, and message before asking for confirmation,' which relates to `event_id`, `guests`, and `message`. However, the description does not add details about the `guests` object structure (e.g., name is optional, email required) beyond what the schema provides. The schema already has constraints like maxLength on `message` and maxItems on `guests`. The description does not clarify the `event_id` format. With 25% coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the flow but not all parameters. It adds value for the confirmation mechanism and the soft-invite semantics, but it doesn't explain the purpose of `message` beyond being shown. Since the coverage is low, the description should have done more to describe each parameter's intent. It's adequate but not thorough.

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 'Send soft event invitations by email and, when linked to a Luma account, SMS.' It specifies the verb (send), the resource (event invitations), and the delivery channels. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_guests' (which likely just adds guests without sending invites) and 'invite_guests_from_event' (which might be a different flow). The description implies a distinct purpose that is not a tautology.

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 does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when *not* to use this tool versus siblings. However, it implies that this is for 'soft' invitations, which hints at a non-committal, non-forced invitation style, differentiating from a hard invite or waitlist approval. The context of siblings (e.g., 'invite_guests_from_event' suggests another invitation route) is there, but the description doesn't explicitly contrast. It gives a clear scenario: 'Invited people choose whether to register,' which implies a voluntary registration flow. It could have been stronger with explicit alternatives or conditions, but it's adequate for basic usage.

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