emet_member_access_create

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

Annotations only cover the generic safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=false). The description adds substantive behavior beyond them: creator authorization ('Only the owner can create it'), the fact that it does not confer ownership, the redeem-on-connect-screen flow, single-use nature of the code, and a feature-flag prerequisite.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by disambiguation and constraints in compact form. The telegraphic fragments ('Only the owner can create it. Off unless EMET_MEMBER_ACCESS=1.') are slightly clipped but each carries real 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?

With no output schema, the description should indicate what the call yields; it implies a generated code but does not state the return shape or what happens when the tool is disabled or the caller lacks owner rights. Otherwise it covers prerequisites and scope well for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 (display_name, days) are already fully documented in the schema, including the important note that a name never selects an existing person. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('create a one-time code for a new person with read and write access') and explicitly frames the scope against 'EMET Guest Access' and ownership. However, it never distinguishes itself from the actual sibling tool 'emet_invite_create', which is the closest candidate for confusion, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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?

It states clear conditions: only the owner can call it, the recipient uses the code on the connect screen instead of the passphrase, and the tool is inactive unless EMET_MEMBER_ACCESS=1. What is missing is an explicit routing statement against alternatives such as emet_invite_create or the guest-access path.

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