Match Agent Invitations

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is known. The description adds useful scope constraints (share only the prepared return channel, no retries on uncertain shares, individual copies for open invitations), but says nothing about what is destroyed, whether a failed match leaves partial state, or what the agent should do on ambiguity.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then constraints in clipped clauses with no filler. Some phrasing ('match exact first-message codes and actual incoming-share owners') is compressed to the point of opacity, costing a bit of readability for density.

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. For a destructive, open-world, no-parameter operation, however, the description omits what a successful match actually changes, what happens on a partial or failed match, and whether the action can be undone, which an agent needs before invoking it.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4; however the description introduces implicit inputs (invitation state, first-message codes, incoming-share owners) without explaining how they are supplied or discovered, which leaves ambiguity about what the tool reads on its own. Adequate but not fully clarifying.

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?

States a specific verb ('Complete') and resource ('user-prepared invitations'), with the sequencing qualifier 'after acceptance' that separates it from prepare_agent_invitation and accept_agent_invitation. The core mechanism ('match exact first-message codes and actual incoming-share owners') is stated but jargon-dense, so the agent knows the domain but not fully the operation.

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?

Gives clear preconditions ('after acceptance', invitations must be user-prepared) and explicit exclusions: no messages, no arbitrary contact creation, no automatic retry of uncertain shares. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, so routing relies on inference from names like prepare_agent_invitation and accept_agent_invitation.

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