decline_channel_invite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core mutation (declining) and the required state ('pending'), but it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or whether the action is reversible. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is adequate but minimal.

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 with no filler, front-loading the action and the resource. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and context. It does not explain return values or post-conditions, but these are likely not necessary for this type of action, making the description nearly complete.

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 for the single parameter is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only slight context by specifying 'pending channel invitation', which is redundant with the tool name and does not significantly enrich the parameter meaning beyond the schema's 'Invitation ID'.

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 uses the specific verb 'declines' with the resource 'pending channel invitation', clearly distinguishing the tool from siblings like 'accept_channel_invite' and 'quit_channel'.

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 clearly implies this tool is for declining pending channel invitations, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or explain when not to use it (e.g., when you want to accept an invite). This is still acceptable given the straightforward context.

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