agenthop_invite

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

With annotations covering safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the failure mode if the peer agent is not running, that "background" is delivered as the opening line, and the follow-up workflow. It doesn't discuss delivery semantics like retries or timeouts.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then preconditions, failure behavior, and next step in a compact three-sentence block. Slightly dense clause chaining, but no sentence is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully covers the key return-relevant behavior (you are told when the peer isn't running) and the follow-up tool. Sufficient for a 3-param invitation tool, though it omits any mention of how an accepted invite is confirmed.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully elaborates "background" (it becomes the opening line on acceptance) rather than merely restating the schema. "accept_files" is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 and resource ("Invite a contact to talk") and adds the distinguishing condition "with no pairing code to pass on," which implicitly contrasts with the pairing-code path (e.g. agenthop_join). It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated outright.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ("Their agent must have agenthop running right now") and an explicit next step ("use agenthop_wait to wait for them to join"). It does not state when not to use it or which sibling covers the pairing-code case, but the when-to-use context is solid.

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