create_dashboard_public_invitation

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It reveals that this tool sends emails (an external side effect) and has a prerequisite about email addresses being in a share_list. Since annotations don't provide readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, the description carries more burden and adequately describes the mutation action and constraints.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second adds a critical constraint. There's no wasted language, and the most important information comes first.

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 tool with 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides complete context about what the tool does and its constraints. It explains the action, target, and prerequisite. The only minor gap is lack of information about what happens after sending (e.g., confirmation, error handling), but this is reasonable given the simplicity.

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 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and it correctly indicates that email addresses are specified elsewhere (implied context). No additional parameter information is needed or provided.

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 ('Send emails'), the resource ('links to access a given authenticated shared dashboard'), and the target recipients ('specified email addresses'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on invitation emails rather than dashboard creation or other operations.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to send dashboard access invitations via email. It specifies a prerequisite ('Email addresses must already belong to the authenticated shared dashboard's share_list'), which helps determine appropriate usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for similar functions.

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