invite_guest_to_event

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces idempotency. It adds value beyond annotations by explicitly stating the additive nature ('does not affect other events') and the mutual-exclusion requirement, which are not fully captured by the schema alone.

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?

Three short sentences, all substantive: purpose, additive scope, the exactly-one semantic, and idempotency. No filler or repetition; the most important constraint 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?

The description covers purpose, scope, idempotency, and parameter exclusivity. For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema fully documents event_id, guest_id, and guest_group_id with descriptions. The description adds the critical cross-parameter constraint 'Pass exactly one of guest_group_id or guest_id', which materially improves correct invocation beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Invite'), a clear resource ('a single guest or guest group to an event'), and the additive scope ('does not affect other events'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like set_event_guests and remove_event_invitation.

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 gives clear context for use: it is additive, idempotent, and requires passing exactly one of guest_group_id or guest_id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the additive framing makes the intended use reasonably unambiguous.

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