set_card_project_guests

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly states the mutating action and optional overrides, but it does not spell out that omitted groups remain unchanged or describe the result/return 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 convey the operation, the optional behavior, and the key call requirement without redundancy. The action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation with fully documented schema fields, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit prose statement of the 'omitted groups untouched' behavior, but the schema already covers that, so no major information is missing.

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% and every parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The description adds the full-list instruction, but this is a marginal addition over the schema's own 'Omitted groups are not affected' note, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: enabling/disabling guest groups for an invitation project, plus optional font-size overrides. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_card_project_guests and set_event_guests by targeting card-project guest groups.

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 and a call instruction: pass the full list of guest groups to record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the invitation-project scope makes the intended use reasonably obvious.

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