mojomo_check_invite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key traits of no auth required and that this is a non-committal preview, which is genuinely useful. It stops short of stating whether the token is consumed or remains valid, what happens with expired/invalid tokens, or whether the output is only visible to the caller.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the auth constraint, then the recommended use. Zero filler and nothing buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must hint at return values — it does so by saying you will 'see which agent is asking for tethering.' That is enough for an agent to decide to call it, though fields like agent name, expiry, or scope are not enumerated.

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 token parameter is already documented as coming from the invite_url, so the description adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb (Preview) and resource (invitation token) and states the concrete outcome: seeing which agent is requesting tethering. Nothing in the sibling list offers a similar token-inspection capability, so an agent can distinguish this tool immediately.

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?

It gives a clear situational trigger — call this before a human accepts the invite, and to show the human who is requesting access. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling performs token previews, so there is little ambiguity to resolve.

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