Preview an invite link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description only restates the read nature by showing a GET path; it does not say what the preview returns (workspace name, inviter, expiry), whether invalid tokens error or return empty, or whether the call is unauthenticated — meaningful behavioral gaps for an open-world read.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the endpoint is placed parenthetically where it does not obstruct scanning. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining the return payload and error behavior, and it does neither. For a preview endpoint whose entire value is the inspected metadata, this leaves the agent unable to anticipate results.

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% and the single token parameter has no description, type detail, or format. The description only echoes '{token}' inside the endpoint path, which hints that the token is an invite identifier but adds no sourcing, format, or validity information beyond what the schema shows.

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 gives a specific verb (preview) and resource (an invite link) plus the concrete endpoint GET /v1/auth/invites/{token}, which distinguishes it from siblings like invites_create, invites_revoke, invites_list, and invites_list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than invites_list or the invite-acceptance flow, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the caller must be authenticated or a workspace member), and no statement about what a valid vs. expired token means. The agent must infer all usage context.

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