Decline Invitation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the '(ignore)' semantic gloss and says nothing about irreversibility, sender notification, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and scoped by 'pending' and 'by sender name'. 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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description need not explain return values or argument formats. It states purpose and target clearly; only the destructive/irreversible nature of the action could have used a note, but annotations already flag it.

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%, so the name and dry_run parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's 'by sender name' merely echoes the name parameter and does not mention dry_run. Baseline 3 applies 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 gives a specific verb (decline) plus resource (pending connection invitation) and even disambiguates the verb with '(ignore)'. That makes it clearly distinct from siblings like accept_invitation and withdraw_connection_request, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: it tells the agent to decline a pending invitation by sender name but never states when to choose this over accept_invitation or withdraw_connection_request, nor any prerequisites. Adequate for a self-explanatory verb but no explicit routing guidance.

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