exportChatInviteLink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the destructive side effect (revoking any previously generated primary link), the permission requirement (bot must be admin with can_invite_users), and the success return type (String). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core action front-loaded, followed by the side effect, permission prerequisite, and return value. Every sentence contributes necessary information with no 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 the tool has one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It covers what the tool does, what side effects occur, who can use it, and what it returns.

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 has only one parameter and its description already covers 100% of the parameter semantics. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 action ('Generate'), a specific resource ('primary invite link'), and the chat scope. It also notes that the previous primary link is revoked, which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like createChatInviteLink and revokeChatInviteLink by its role in the primary-link lifecycle.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for generating the primary invite link, with a revocation consequence and the required admin permission. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'primary' framing makes the intended use reasonably obvious amid the sibling invite-link tools.

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