Mint an invite link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses access scope (read thumbnails, act on it), security boundary (never see stored credentials), ownership requirement, and one-time redemption. This goes well beyond a generic 'create invite.'

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core action and then pack in constraints and access details without fluff. Every sentence adds behavioral or usage information.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, lifecycle, permissions, and access scope. It does not explicitly state the return value/format of the minted token or link, which is a minor gap given the title implies a link.

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 the sole parameter 'game' is already described as 'Game name or universe id.' The description only adds the synonym 'project,' which is marginal; it does not add format or validation detail beyond the 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?

Description opens with 'Create a single-use invite token for a project,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_collaborators by focusing on minting an invite rather than listing collaborators, and adds scope (project, seven days, single-use).

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?

Provides clear usage constraints: 'Owner only,' single-use, seven-day expiry, and 'spent on first use.' It implies when to use (inviting a collaborator) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, so it stops short of a 5.

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