Invite survey participants

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc. The description adds that the tool sends emails and requires confirmation, which aligns with the annotations. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., email quotas, partial failures) or the underlying method's behavior beyond its name.

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 two sentences: the first states the main purpose and a key requirement, the second provides implementation context. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary 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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the primary action and a critical constraint. However, for a tool that triggers email delivery, additional context about what happens after sending (e.g., logging, error handling) would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond the parameter descriptions. It reinforces confirm_send_email=true as required but does not provide additional meaning or usage hints for parameters.

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 'Send survey invitation emails to selected or eligible participants.' It specifies the action (send), resource (invitation emails), and scope (selected or eligible). While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like limesurvey_mail_registered_participants, the term 'invite' implies a distinct purpose.

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 provides a prerequisite (requires confirm_send_email=true) and an authentication note (service account, no session key). However, it does not specify when to use this tool instead of limesurvey_mail_registered_participants or limesurvey_remind_participants, nor does it give exclusions or alternatives.

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