update_invite

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning permissions, reversibility, side effects, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, focused sentence with a useful parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. No unnecessary information is included.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what happens after the update or what the response contains. The one-line description lacks this context, making it incomplete for an update operation that may require confirmation of changes or error handling.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions the two updatable fields ('role' and 'note'), which adds meaning to the schema's role_level and note parameters. However, it doesn't explain the id parameter or provide additional detail beyond what the schema already offers.

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 ('Update'), the resource ('an invite'), and the specific changeable attributes ('role or note'). This distinguishes it from other invite-related tools like resend_invite or accept_invite, which have different purposes.

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 for updating an existing invite's role or note, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like create_invite, resend_invite, or accept_invite. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, but the core usage is clear enough to be inferred.

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