decline_invitation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states it declines an invitation and returns confirmation, but omits details like side effects (e.g., removal from list), authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise—one sentence for purpose, then an Args section. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the action, parameter meaning, and expected outcome. Minimal gaps exist, such as not specifying the exact return format, but not critical.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds meaningful context for the only parameter: 'invitation_id: The ID of the invitation to decline (from list_invitations_received).' This explains where to obtain the value, going beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Decline a received connection request.' It uses a specific verb (decline) and resource (invitation), distinguishing it from sibling tools like accept_invitation and cancel_invitation.

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 implies usage context by noting the invitation_id should come from list_invitations_received. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with accept_invitation or cancel_invitation, nor does it state when not to use it. Still, the intent is clear given sibling names.

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