accept_invite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the 'public flow' context and clarifies the token type, but it doesn't mention side effects (e.g., invite consumption), potential auth requirements, or failure modes. Sufficient for a simple accept action but leaves some gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, specifies the token type, and differentiates from a sibling. Every part is informative with no fluff or repetition.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key context: what it does, how it's triggered, and how it differs from a closely related tool. It doesn't specify post-acceptance behavior, but for a one-parameter action, this is largely 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 only defines `token` as a string with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description compensates by explaining the token is an 'email-link token', giving essential meaning to the parameter. This is helpful and adequate for a single parameter.

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 an invite') and the specific mechanism ('using its email-link token'). It explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling `accept_my_invite`, which targets a different flow. This provides a specific verb, resource, and scope with strong differentiation.

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 gives usage context by labeling this the 'public flow' and contrasting it with `accept_my_invite` (which is profile-scoped for authenticated users). This tells an agent when to use this tool versus the alternative, though it could be more explicit with a direct 'use this when' statement.

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