Prepare Agent Invitation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful constraints (never invent codes, use the returned topic exactly). However, the instruction to 'Include own_userid/code in the invite' references inputs that do not exist in the schema, which muddies rather than clarifies behavior.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the purpose, but sentences are terse to the point of cryptic ('authorizes only its matched return share') and include off-schema references that consume attention without adding usable instruction.

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 explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the mismatch between described inputs (own_userid/code) and actual parameters leaves an agent uncertain how to construct a valid call.

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 schema already explains data_type and open_invitation. The description adds no real semantics for either parameter and instead mentions own_userid/code, which is not a parameter at all.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Prepare an invitation code', with scope clarified as 'authorizes only its matched return share'. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like create_agent_invitation or prepare_standing_agent_invitation, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'at the user's request' implies a usage context, and the 'accepting agent's FIRST message' line describes downstream consumption. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus the closely named sibling invitation tools, leaving the choice to inference.

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