group_invite_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the genuinely useful detail that `reset` invalidates the previous link. That detail sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true (a reset replaces the link rather than reproducing the same result), but it reads as a nuance rather than a direct contradiction. No permission error behavior or rate-limit context is given.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and the admin prerequisite, with no filler. It is arguably too terse for a 3-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the admin prerequisite plus reset semantics are covered. Still, the two undocumented parameters (`chat`, `account`) and the absence of any routing versus preview_group_link leave the definition only minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only 33%: `chat` and `account` are completely undocumented in both schema and description. The one parameter the description touches, `reset`, is already fully described in the schema ('Invalider l'ancien lien et en créer un nouveau'), so the description adds no meaning there. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the other two parameters.

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 the resource (a group's invite link) but uses a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer whether it retrieves, creates, or regenerates the link. It also never distinguishes itself from the sibling preview_group_link, which plausibly serves a similar purpose. The parenthetical about needing administrator rights adds useful framing but not a clear action statement.

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 gives one concrete usage condition ('il faut en être administrateur') and explains what `reset` does, which is more than nothing. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over preview_group_link, nor what happens if the caller is not an admin. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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