Decline a contact's invitation, optionally including a reason, so they know immediately instead of waiting.
Decline a contact's invitation, optionally with a reason. They know right away instead of waiting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | Name of the contact who sent the invitation; may be left out when only one is inviting | |
| reason | No | Why, e.g.: busy right now, try me in an hour |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Input schema / properties / from / descriptionPrevious value: -"发邀请的联系人名字；只有一个人在邀请时可以不填"New value: +"Name of the contact who sent the invitation; may be left out when only one is inviting"Input schema / properties / reason / descriptionPrevious value: -"回绝的理由，例如：现在在忙，一小时后再找我"New value: +"Why, e.g.: busy right now, try me in an hour"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent and open-world behavior, so the description only needs to add value. 'They know right away' usefully discloses the immediate-notification side effect on the other party, a real behavioral trait not encoded in the 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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words; the core action leads and the behavioral note follows. The second sentence is slightly colloquial but still earns its place by conveying notification timing.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, full schema coverage and meaningful annotations, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. Missing only explicit routing to the accept/wait alternatives.
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 100%, so both parameters (from, reason) are fully documented with examples in the schema itself. The description only restates that a reason is optional, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb plus resource ('Decline a contact's invitation'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling agenthop_accept. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the counterpart choice, so it is clear but not fully differentiated in-text.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative (agenthop_accept, agenthop_wait). 'They know right away instead of waiting' reads as a benefit statement rather than a condition that selects this tool over a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.