invite_accept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, whether the invite is consumed, reversibility, or any required auth context. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs a state-changing operation.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no extraneous words. It is optimally concise while conveying the core purpose.

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 tool's low complexity (two simple parameters with full schema descriptions, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate. However, the absence of annotations and any mention of post-acceptance effects leaves a small gap, but not enough to significantly impair an agent's ability to use it correctly.

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%: both 'domain' and 'token' have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already covers the meaning adequately, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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: 'Accept a domain invite that was sent to you.' It uses a specific verb (accept) and resource (domain invite), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like invite_create and invite_delete. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 'that was sent to you' implies the tool is for when the agent has received an invite, providing some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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