evite_send

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint:false annotation by warning 'THIS EMAILS GUESTS' and explaining that without confirm:true it returns a dry-run preview and sends nothing. This is crucial behavioral disclosure for a mutating tool and prevents accidental sends.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and the critical safety warning. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or 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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the action, safety gate, and dry-run behavior. It leaves no important gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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 description coverage is 100% and already documents both parameters, including the confirm gate. The description adds the term 'dry-run' but essentially mirrors the schema, providing no significant extra meaning beyond what structured data already offers.

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 sends the invitation to 'ready-to-send (draft) guests' of an event, using a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like evite_send_message or evite_broadcast by focusing on the main invite and the 'Send now' action.

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 provides clear context by specifying the target guests and the send action, and it explains the confirm-gating behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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