ig_respond_collaboration_invite

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It is consistent but does not go beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences long, with the key purpose and parameter usage in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying second sentence, and a final context sentence. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential functional aspects. It could be more complete by mentioning the expected outcome or error states, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 100% for both parameters, so the description adds limited new meaning. It does restate the source of media_id (from ig_get_collaboration_invites) and the boolean nature of accept, which is marginally helpful but does not significantly augment the schema.

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 clearly states 'Accept or decline a collaboration invite by media_id', specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool ig_get_collaboration_invites by focusing on responding rather than listing. The verb is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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 explicitly tells the agent to obtain the media_id from ig_get_collaboration_invites, providing a clear prerequisite. It does not, however, elaborate on when to accept vs decline or explicitly state alternatives, but the sibling list makes it obvious this is the only tool for this action.

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