invite_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention side effects, permission requirements, duplicate handling, or failure behavior. While not misleading, it adds essentially no transparency beyond the operation itself.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for such a simple action, though it is minimal to the point of lacking detail that other dimensions penalize.

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?

While an output schema exists, the description omits important operational context such as whether the caller must be an admin/owner, whether users must already exist, and what happens with invalid input. Given the tool's mutation nature and lack of annotations, the description is too sparse to be considered complete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for both parameters. The description maps 'group or channel' to the chat parameter and 'users' to the users array, but does not specify formats (IDs vs names), constraints, or semantics beyond that minimal mapping. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('users') with a target ('group or channel'). It naturally differentiates from siblings like join_chat (self-invite) and create_channel/create_group (entity creation). Although it doesn't name siblings, the action is unambiguous in context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no conditions. It simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer that it should be used when adding users to an existing chat. No mention of required permissions or comparison with join_chat.

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