Create Agent Invitation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state and has external effects. The description adds useful context about what is produced (a new outbox and an invitation code) and the sharing side effect. It does not explain what makes the operation destructive — e.g., what happens if an outbox with that label already exists — nor anything about permissions or reversibility.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the creation action and puts the conditional sharing clause after the semicolon. Efficient, though the '<recipient>'s agent' phrasing is slightly awkward to parse.

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 annotations carry the safety profile. What is missing is the destructive dimension: the description says what gets created but not what gets overwritten or lost, which is the one thing an agent most needs before calling a destructiveHint=true 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds meaning: it ties recipient_name to the outbox label and explains the behavioral consequence of recipient_userid (the outbox is shared with exactly that user), which the schema's 'Optional exact Fulcra user ID' does not convey. inviter_name remains unexplained in the description, keeping this short of a 5.

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 states a specific verb+resource: create an outbox labeled '<recipient>'s agent' and prepare its single-person invitation code, with an optional sharing step. That is far more than a restatement of the name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools prepare_agent_invitation and prepare_standing_agent_invitation, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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 only conditional given is about behavior ('with recipient_userid, share the outbox with exactly that user'), not about when to choose this tool. With three closely related invitation tools in the sibling list, the absence of any routing guidance or exclusion is a real gap.

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