Invite summoners to active party lobby

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

Annotations already declare the write/destructive/non-idempotent/open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses the failure mode ('fails with diagnostic error if not currently in a lobby') and an authorization prerequisite ('Needs POST /lol-lobby/v2/lobby/invitations on the write allowlist'). It does not describe what happens to already-invited players or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the action, then routing alternatives, then behavior, then the allowlist requirement. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the raw endpoint path in the trailing Behavior sentence is slightly implementation-flavored and the description runs to four sentences where three would suffice.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, failure conditions, and auth prerequisites. There is no output to explain and nothing an agent needs to call it correctly that is missing.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or multiplicity detail beyond what the schema already provides. No params-related gap, but no added meaning either.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Dispatches invitations to one or more summoner PUUIDs to join the current game lobby party'), which is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the two most confusable siblings by name, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition ('after creating a lobby when inviting friends or premade party members') and names two alternatives with their respective conditions ('use lol_workflow_lobby' for creating/searching, 'lol_workflow_matchmaking_accept' for ready checks). This is a complete when/when-not map.

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