memory_invite_to_room

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavioral context: the invite is one-time, produces a ready-to-forward message, and involves third-party sharing (messenger, link or code). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise with three sentences, each adding value: action, user flow, usage context. Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately hints at return value ('ready-to-forward message'). The tool's complexity is low, and the description covers the essential workflow. Could be improved by explicitly stating the return format.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'room you own' which aligns with room_id but provides no additional detail on scope or expires_in_days. Schema descriptions are adequate.

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 it mints a one-time invite for a room, with a specific verb 'mint' and resource 'invite'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_create_room and memory_join_room by focusing on the invite creation action.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use after memory_create_room, or whenever the user says invite <someone>.' While it doesn't list explicit exclusions, the context is clear and associates with specific user scenarios.

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