send_invites

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states 'Send invites' and returns a generic 'Result of sending invites or an error message,' without disclosing side effects, idempotency, required event state, or failure behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with a one-sentence summary followed by structured Args/Returns sections. It avoids filler, though the Returns sentence is somewhat generic and low-information.

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 two-parameter tool, the description maps both parameters and gives a basic return expectation, which is enough for a straightforward call. However, missing behavioral context and usage guidance leave the tool only partially contextualized for an agent.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining that event_id is the unique event identifier with an example, and by stating that guests are Guest objects with required email and optional name. It repeats some of the schema's structure but adds limited extra meaning beyond the example.

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?

Description opens with 'Send invites to guests for a Luma event,' a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's purpose. This distinguishes it from the read-only sibling tools such as list_events and get_guests, and from add_host/update_event.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative tool routing is provided. An agent must infer from the wording that sending invites is the intended operation, but the description does not clarify how it compares to add_host or other event-related tools.

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