set_card_project_guests

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partially covered. The description reinforces the full-list semantics but adds nothing about permissions, idempotency, or what happens to unlisted groups beyond what the schema states.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the full-list caveat second. No wasted words.

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 2-parameter mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key input-semantics caveat. Return behavior need not be explained, and the schema carries parameter detail.

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 both parameters and nested fields (enabled, font-size overrides, guest_group_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the full-list requirement, adding little beyond the structured data.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Enable / disable guest groups for an invitation project') plus the optional font-size overrides. Clear what it does, but it does not differentiate itself from the adjacent set_event_guests sibling, which sounds similar.

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?

'Pass the full list of guest groups you want recorded' gives an implied usage rule (full-list semantics), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is left to inference.

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