ig_respond_collaboration_invite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, required permissions, or potential failures (e.g., if the invite is invalid). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. However, it is too sparse, missing important usage details. It is efficient but not comprehensive enough to earn a 5.

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 low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description minimally covers the action. However, it lacks behavioral context like permissions or side effects, which are important for safe invocation. Adequate but not complete.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with 100% description coverage (invite_id and action with enum). The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, just restating the action. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Accept or decline') and the resource ('a collaboration invite'), with no ambiguity. It effectively distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools like 'ig_get_collaboration_invites' which only lists invites.

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 provides no guidance on when to accept vs decline, or what prerequisites exist (e.g., having an invite). It lacks any usage context or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the enum alone.

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