invite_challenger

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it covers the mutation: it creates a single-use invite and causes the challenger to bind their messenger identity to the config when tapped. It also discloses the auth requirement and the return payload, though it doesn't describe expiration 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 compact and well organized: purpose first, then return value, then access prerequisites. No redundant sentences or filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully states the returned deep links and QR code, plus the access setup needed before calling. It is adequate for a two-parameter tool, though it could mention that the referenced config/challenger must already exist.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions and format patterns, so the description adds no new parameter semantics. The prose references the invite flow but not the IDs themselves.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Mint a single-use Proof-Me enrollment invite for a challenger,' and explains the tangible output (Telegram + WhatsApp deep links, QR code). This differentiates it from sibling tools like add_challenger and start_login.

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 clearly communicates prerequisites: needs a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, and the server restarted. It also warns that start_login does not open this tool, giving an explicit exclusion, though it doesn't contrast with other invite/challenger alternatives.

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