conversations_invite

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the core action, omitting any details about permissions, error conditions, side effects (e.g., whether duplicates are handled), or rate limits. This is minimal disclosure.

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, making it very concise. However, it lacks sufficient detail to be genuinely helpful. It is front-loaded but too brief given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no schema 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 tool has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, the description should cover parameter purposes, return values, and error scenarios. It does none of these. The output schema exists but is not referenced. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete.

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 clarify parameters. It does not. The 'force' parameter's purpose remains ambiguous, and no format or constraints are given for 'channel' or 'users'. The description adds no 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 'Invite users to a channel.' clearly states the action (invite) and resource (channel). It is specific and matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'conversations_invite_shared' which handles shared channel invites, reducing clarity for agents.

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 usage for inviting users to channels, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It fails to mention alternatives like 'conversations_join' for self-joining or 'conversations_invite_shared' for external invites, leaving agents to infer context.

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