vibo_invite_users

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, leaving behavioral disclosure to the description. The description adds the confirm-gated trait, but the schema already explains the preview behavior. It also implies email sending but does not elaborate on side effects or permissions. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 a single concise sentence followed by a short phrase. Every word is essential, and the core action is front-loaded, making it extremely efficient.

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 five fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core purpose and confirm gating. However, it does not describe return values or outcomes after a successful invite, though the schema's confirm description covers the preview case. This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 all parameters are already well-documented. The description's mention of host/guest and email maps directly to existing schema descriptions, adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 action (invite), the target (people to an event), method (by email), and role options (host/guest), distinguishing it from sibling tools like join_event or list_event_users. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 for inviting new participants via email, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like change_user_role or remove_user. It lacks clear exclusions or alternative references, so context is implied rather than stated.

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