reject_invite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the action and gives no indication of irreversibility, required permissions, side effects, or the need for confirmation, aside from what is buried in the parameter schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it misses the opportunity to state the confirmation requirement in prose.

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 two-parameter tool with fully documented schemas, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient for invocation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent gets little sense of what a successful rejection returns or whether the action is reversible.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions are meaningful: inviteToken is tied to list_invites, and confirm must be true for the write operation. The tool description itself adds no parameter details, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Reject') on a specific resource ('an invitation token'), making the tool's intent clear. It also naturally contrasts with the sibling accept_invite, though it does not explicitly describe what rejecting the invitation accomplishes.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and alternatives are not named. However, the tool name and sibling set make the intended context reasonably clear: use this to decline an invitation rather than accept it.

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