invite_member

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the invite is immediate and that invitees must accept before joining, and it notes the batch limitation. However, it omits details like permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens if MIDs are invalid.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. Every sentence provides essential information: action, effect, input source, and usage constraint. No wasted words.

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 does not explain return values or error codes. It also lacks information on required permissions or rate limits. While it covers core usage, it could be more complete for a tool with complex outcomes like invitation results.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by specifying where to get 'mids' (from find_contact or get_group_members) and that 'chatId' is returned by list_conversations. These sources are not in the schema, improving parameter understanding.

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 action ('invites members into a LINE group immediately') and the resource (LINE group). It distinguishes from sibling tools like accept_invitation and kick_member by specifying the direction of the invitation.

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 tells the agent where to obtain the required parameter 'mids' (from find_contact or get_group_members) and advises 'one call per invite batch', providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention prerequisites like admin permissions.

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