remind_invite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, error conditions, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a successful outcome. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a side-effecting email send.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is appropriately brief for such a simple tool, though it could afford to add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 the single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves many unknowns: what happens after sending, what errors may occur, and how an agent can verify the reminder was sent. The description is too minimal to fully inform 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%, so the description must explain the token parameter, but it does not define what the token represents (e.g., the invitation token) or its role in the action. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and format.

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 ('Send'), the resource ('reminder email'), and the condition ('for a pending invitation'). It distinguishes naturally from sibling tools like create_invite and cancel_invite by its purpose.

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 usage for pending invitations but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as getting the invite status or canceling. It offers no clear exclusion criteria or mention of alternative tools.

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