vibo_invite_users

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description goes a step further by flagging that the operation is 'Confirm-gated,' which tells the agent a confirmation token is required before the invite is sent. It stays consistent with the mutable nature of the tool and adds useful non-obvious behavior.

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?

Two short sentences—first states the action and scope, second adds the key behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 five-parameter mutation with a complete schema and no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs to select and invoke it: purpose, role dimension, and the confirmation gate. It does not describe response/error behavior, but no output schema exists and the schema already covers the preview case.

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%, so the input schema already explains eventId, type, text, emails, and confirm. The description's mention of email, host/guest, and confirm-gating mirrors the schema rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, which meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 names a specific action ('Invite'), a clear resource ('people to an event'), the delivery channel ('by email'), and role scope ('as host or guest'). This is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like vibo_join_event, vibo_change_user_role, and vibo_remove_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?

The phrase 'Invite people to an event by email' establishes a clear use case, and the host/guest distinction clarifies what the type parameter is for. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no other sibling tool covers email invitations, so the routing context is sufficient.

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