invite_parent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a prerequisite (PS_ENABLE_WRITES), the effect (ParentSquare emails the guardian), and that the same endpoint can resend. This is helpful, but it does not mention potential errors, idempotency beyond 'resend', or any rate limits. It covers the key behavioral traits adequately.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then explains usage and parameters in a compact block. No unnecessary words or repetition. The Args section cleanly lists parameters with short descriptions.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no enums, output schema exists), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage condition, prerequisite, and parameter sources. It is complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. The output schema handles return values, so no need to repeat them.

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 provides brief but useful semantics: school_id is a School ID and user_id is the Guardian's user ID, with an explicit source (from list_parents). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema and helps an agent understand where the parameters come from.

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: send (or resend) a ParentSquare registration invitation to one guardian. It specifies the resource (registration invitation) and the target (one guardian), and distinguishes from bulk operations by emphasizing 'one guardian'. The mention of resending also clarifies a specific use case.

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?

It gives clear context: get user_id from list_parents and only invite guardians with registered=false. This establishes when to use and when not to (unregistered guardians only). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like bulk_invite_parents, though it implies single vs. bulk. The guidance is strong but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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