tg_invite

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds useful specifics: it can return a primary invite link, add users, and revoke an old link while issuing a new one. This goes beyond the annotations by exposing a potentially destructive side effect (revoking an existing link) and the 'and/or' conditional 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact Args list. Every line adds information about a parameter or behavior, with no filler or repetition of the schema's type information.

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 four-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the main invocation concerns: what each argument does and the primary side effects. It does not explain edge cases like calling with no users and link=false, or how output is structured, but it is still largely self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 0%, but the description documents all four parameters with meaningful semantics: chat is 'the group or channel,' users are 'who to add,' link 'also return[s] the primary invite link,' and revoke 'revoke[s] the old link and issue[s] a new one.' This fully compensates for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 opening line names a clear verb and resource: 'Invite people to a chat and/or get its invite link.' It covers the dual behavior of the tool well. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like tg_invites or tg_create_group, so it loses the differentiation point for a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tg_invites, tg_create_group, or tg_chat_edit. The description implies usage from its purpose, but it provides no explicit context, exclusions, or recommendations, so an agent must infer when this is the right tool.

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