export_chat_invite

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

The description discloses effective behavior: it creates an invite link and explains that request_needed=true means candidates wait for approval. It also notes the title is for admin audit. Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds useful context about link parameters without contradicting annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clean Args section. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema (so return format is covered), and parameters are well explained. The description lacks details about permissions or side effects, but given the annotations and low complexity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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%, but the description compensates by explaining the purpose of expire_unix, usage_limit, request_needed, and title. The only parameter not explicitly described is 'chat', but its name and role as the target chat/channel are reasonably inferable from the tool's purpose.

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 'Создать invite-ссылку на чат/канал' (Create invite link to chat/channel), using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools, none of which mention creating invite links.

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 clearly implies this tool is used to create invite links, and the parameter details clarify common usage scenarios (expiration, usage limit, approval, label). No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the purpose is sufficiently clear for selection.

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