Match Agent Invitations

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds important behavioral constraints: authenticated owner verification, individual copies for open invitations, display-only labels, consent requirements, and no sends or preference changes. It still does not explain what destructive state change justifies destructiveHint=true.

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 core matching action is front-loaded and every sentence appears to add a specific constraint. The wording is dense and jargon-heavy, making it harder to scan than ideal, but there is little obvious filler.

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 an output schema and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values. However, it still leaves the plain-language outcome of 'matching' unclear and never describes the destructive action implied by the annotations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. Schema coverage is also 100%, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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: matching invitation codes for user-prepared invitations. It also distinguishes the operation from sender-claim-based matching and explicitly excludes sends, but it never names or contrasts the prepare/create invitation siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied through conditions like 'unambiguous FIRST-message codes' and 'not sender claims.' There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no statement of when not to call it.

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