create_invite

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully clarifies that 0 means 'never expires' for max_age and 'unlimited' for max_uses, but says nothing about permission requirements, whether the created invite is immediately usable, or what the call returns (presumably an invite code/URL).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the non-obvious parameter semantics in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical-only format limits how much guidance can be conveyed.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description covers only two of four parameters and omits permissions, return value, and the meaning of 'temporary' — significant gaps for an agent calling it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It does add real meaning for max_age and max_uses (the 0 = never/unlimited convention is not derivable from the bare schema), but leaves 'temporary' and 'channel_id' entirely unexplained, so half the surface remains opaque.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Cria convite' = create invite), which is unambiguous and instantly distinguishable from siblings like list_invites and delete_invite. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the action is clear enough that no agent would confuse them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the permissions required to create an invite, and no indication of what to do if the invite should be created in a different channel. The agent must infer all usage context from the tool name alone.

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