party_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short. 'Accept or reject' implies a state-changing action but the description never says what happens on accept (do you join the party? is the inviter notified?), whether an invitation must be pending, or what occurs if it fails.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably too terse for the behavioral gaps it leaves, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 two-parameter action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to pick the tool but incomplete: it omits precondition (a pending invite), post-call effect, and the account_id parameter.

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%, but the description directly covers the 'accept' boolean by describing the accept/reject choice, which is the essential semantic. The required 'account_id' is left entirely undocumented and there is no note on the default=true behavior.

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?

States a specific verb pair (accept/reject) and resource (party invitation), so an agent can immediately tell this handles responding to an invitation. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like party_leave and party_chat, though it never names them.

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?

Implies usage (you must have a pending invitation) but never states when to call it versus alternatives such as party_leave or trade_accept, nor what precondition must hold. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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