acp_create_invite

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses almost nothing beyond 'sign'. It doesn't say whether the token is stored or returned, what the default expiry is, what identity/authentication is needed, or whether the operation is idempotent — all critical for a token-minting mutation.

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 sentence with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than concise given the tool's four-parameter surface. The core action is front-loaded, which is a plus.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and completely undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what a successful call yields (token string? invite URL?) or how the invite relates to owner identity and expiry.

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 0% across four parameters (name, agentDid, relayUrl, expiresInSeconds) and the description explains none of them. It doesn't even clarify that relayUrl is mandatory or what expiresInSeconds defaults to, leaving every argument to be guessed from its name.

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 has a concrete verb ('Sign') and resource ('acp-invite token') scoped to 'this server owner', so the operation is identifiable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from siblings like acp_revoke_token or acp_delegate_task, and the name/description framing ('create_invite' vs 'sign a token') leaves mild ambiguity about whether it creates, persists, or merely signs.

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?

No indication of when an agent should call this versus acp_revoke_token or the delegate tools, and no prerequisites such as required identity, permissions, or whether an invite must later be revoked. The only contextual hint is 'for this server owner', which does not guide tool selection.

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