Convite de servidor

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

Annotations cover the safety/mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuine value beyond them: joining via API may return CAPTCHA_REQUIRED and require action in the official app. That operational caveat is not derivable from the annotations and is exactly the kind of context an agent needs.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the accept modifier, then the captcha caveat. Front-loaded with the primary behavior and free of filler.

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 tool with no output schema and only moderate complexity, the description names what the invite data contains (server, channel, members) and flags the CAPTCHA_REQUIRED failure mode. Slightly more detail on the accept-mode side effects or error surface would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents code, accept, and format. The description reinforces the meaning of accept=true but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Mostra os dados de um convite') and then states the conditional join mode. It is clear what the tool does, though it never differentiates itself from any sibling (e.g. list_guilds or join_thread) that an agent might confuse it with.

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 dual-mode behavior (show vs. join via accept=true) is conveyed, which gives implied guidance on how to invoke it. However there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use framing and no named alternative, so the agent must infer the selection logic.

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