invite_circle_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a state-changing mint that produces a single-use invite, returns Telegram/WhatsApp links and QR, and depends on a server-side API key. Missing details like expiration or revocation are not mentioned, but the core behavioral traits and an operational gotcha are covered.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the main function, followed by a relevant access note. Every sentence adds value; the start_login warning is a worthwhile guard rail rather than 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?

For a two-param tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it returns, the side effect (single-use enrollment), and the auth setup required to call it successfully. It does not describe expiration or error behavior, but those are not necessary for selecting and invoking based on the provided schema.

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 schema already documents 'Circle ID' and 'Member ID to invite' with patterns. The description reinforces the invite purpose but adds no syntax or additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action verb ('Mint') and a clear resource ('single-use enrollment invite for a Circle member'), and differentiates itself from siblings like add_circle_member and invite_challenger by emphasizing the messenger-identity binding outcome and returned channel links.

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?

Gives explicit access prerequisites (Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY setup) and a specific routing exclusion: 'start_login does NOT open this tool.' It doesn't enumerate when to prefer this over add_circle_member or invite_challenger, but the context is clear enough for an agent to invoke it appropriately.

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