generate_bot_invite_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this produces a link (implying no side effects) and that permissions are customizable, but it omits whether generation itself requires elevated permissions, whether the link expires, and that the bot is only actually added after the user completes the OAuth2 flow.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and scope stated immediately and zero filler. Nothing to trim 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?

For a five-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it never states what is returned (a URL string) or the operational caveats. The 100% schema coverage compensates on parameters, but behavioral context is left sparse.

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 schema already explains guildId, clientId, scopesCsv, permissionsCsv, and permissionsRaw in detail. The description adds the general 'custom permissions' framing but no additional per-parameter meaning, so 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 verb (Generate) and resource (OAuth2 invite link), plus the scope 'to add a bot or application to a server with custom permissions'. This is clear and distinguishable from server-invite siblings, but it never explicitly names the adjacent create_invite tool, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 implies the use case (adding a bot/application) but never says when to use this versus create_invite, list_invites, or get_invite_details, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer which invite tool applies.

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