Invite a user to a channel/supergroup

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

Annotations include idempotentHint but not readOnly or destructive hints, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It simply says 'Add' without mentioning permissions, potential errors, or side effects beyond the annotations. No additional context is provided.

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 a single, direct sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key action.

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?

The tool has no output schema and only a brief description. It omits important context such as prerequisites, return behavior, or error conditions, especially given the openWorldHint annotation which suggests additional side effects may exist.

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 33%, with only 'users' described. The description adds meaning to 'peer' (channel/supergroup) and clarifies that 'users' can be a list, but it does not explain 'accountId'. This partially compensates for the low 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 'Add a user (or list of users) to a channel or supergroup' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the action and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling membership tools like kick_participant or ban_user.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating invite links or other member management functions. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred.

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