unrugable_invite_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that generating the invite link enables sharing to chain launches and route fees, but omits details about side effects, permissions, costs, or link format. The basic behavior is clear, but deeper behavioral traits are missing.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value: first states the generation, second explains the purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, what input is needed, and the outcome. However, it could mention the format of the invite link (e.g., URL) to be more 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 has 100% coverage with a brief description for reactorAddress. The tool description expands on its purpose by explaining that the generated invite link will chain launches and route fees, adding contextual meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'Unrugable invite link', specifying the input as a reactor address. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like unrugable_check_reactor and unrugable_launch by describing a unique action (generating an invite link to chain launches and route fees).

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 implies the tool is used when wanting to create an invite link to chain launches and route fees upstream. It provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among siblings, though the distinct purpose makes the usage clear.

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