invites_create_channel

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'unique' nuance and stream-target capability, but these are also present in the schema. It does not disclose prerequisites like permissions, rate limits, or the fact that without unique=true the API might reuse an existing invite (implied but not explicitly stated).

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?

Description is well-structured with bold section headers (Purpose, When to use, When NOT to use, Example, Returns) and is extremely concise. Every sentence provides actionable information with no filler.

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 tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, an example, and return fields. It doesn't exhaustively explain all parameter combinations, but the 100% schema coverage and output schema fill those gaps. The main use cases are well represented.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example with typical values and highlights the stream-target combination (target_type=1, target_user_id), going slightly beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 'Create a new invite for a channel' with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning stream-target invites and by listing when NOT to use (reuse existing invite → invite_list_channel).

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections. It names an alternative tool (invites_list_channel) for reusing existing invites, giving clear decision-making guidance.

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