bosch_camera_friends_invite

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It only states the action, omitting details like authorization requirements, whether the invite is sent immediately, idempotency, or error cases (e.g., duplicate email).

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 extremely concise with two short phrases. It is front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices necessary details for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description should clarify the result (e.g., success message, pending invite). It lacks prerequisites and side effects, making it incomplete for reliable agent decision-making.

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%, and the description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name 'email' by noting '(by email)'. It does not explain format, validation, or implications.

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 verb 'Invite' and the resource 'a new friend (by email)' to share cameras, and specifies it is account-level. It distinguishes from sibling tools like friends_list, friends_remove, friends_share, and friends_unshare.

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 when to use: to invite someone via email. It mentions 'Account-level' which clarifies scope. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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