emet_invite_create

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

Annotations already declare the safe/one-shot profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely new context: the code is one-time, access defaults to read-only, and creation is restricted to the owner — a meaningful permission constraint not captured elsewhere.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action leads, followed by mechanism, constraints, and a routing note to the sibling tool.

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 small three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth restriction, defaults, and sibling disambiguation. Only the returned artifact (the actual code) is left implicit, a minor gap.

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 already documents display_name, days (default 14), and scopes (default emet.read). The description's 'default access is read-only' merely restates the scopes default, adding no syntax or meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('create a one-time code for a guest') and explains the mechanism (pasted on the connect screen instead of the passphrase). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling emet_member_access_create by calling member access 'a different door'.

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?

Clear context for when this applies (guest access via a code rather than a passphrase) and it names the adjacent alternative (EMET Member Access). It stops short of spelling out the selection criteria between guest vs. member access beyond the metaphor.

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