Decline invitation

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness (destructiveHint=true) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true), and the description adds that the invitation is 'pending' and 'sent to the current user,' which clarifies that only the user's own pending invitations are affected. It doesn't detail side effects like notification to the inviter, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. There is no wasted text, and the sentence structure is straightforward and easy 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?

For a simple mutation tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the context: what the tool does, to whom it applies, and the state of the invitation. The annotations fill in the behavioral profile, making this 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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including its provenance ('from list_my_invitations'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 (decline), the resource (board invitation), and the scope (sent to the current user). This distinguishes it from siblings like accept_board_invitation and revoke_board_invitation by emphasizing the invitation is pending and belongs to the current user.

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 phrase 'pending board invitation sent to the current user' implies the tool is for invitations the user has received, not ones they created (which would be revoked via revoke_board_invitation). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with accept or revoke alternatives, but the context is clear enough for the intended use.

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