tocaro_invite_to_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a critical non-obvious side effect: re-inviting an owner demotes them to a general member, which is invaluable for a mutation tool. It does not cover auth requirements or idempotency, but it meaningfully exceeds baseline expectations.

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 efficiently structured: core purpose first, then parameter formats, then critical caveats. Every sentence adds operational value, and there is no redundant repetition of schema information.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully equips an agent to call it correctly. It covers parameter constraints, data source for members, precondition checking, and a hazardous edge case. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully does: it defines the required 'group' format ('gr' + 8-9 characters), the 'members' format ('us' + 8-character user codes), and explains how to obtain valid member values via tocaro_search_users.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: '既存のグループにユーザーを招待する' (invite users to an existing group). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_group and post_message, and the '既存' (existing) qualifier disambiguates its scope.

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 description gives explicit procedural guidance: obtain user codes via tocaro_search_users, verify current membership with tocaro_get_group_members, and avoid including existing members. It also warns against re-inviting owners, making the when-to-use and when-to-avoid conditions very clear.

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