Test invite token resolution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the HTTP method and authorization class (public), which provides minimal extra context but does not explain what 'test' entails (e.g., whether it validates token format or checks actual resolution).

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 very brief (two lines), repeating the title and providing the endpoint. It under-specifies important details, sacrificing informativeness for brevity.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not indicate what the test returns (e.g., success/failure, resolved user/company). Combined with missing parameter semantics, the description fails to give the agent sufficient context for proper invocation.

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 input schema has one parameter (token) with 0% schema coverage (no description). The description does not mention the token parameter at all, so it adds no value beyond the schema. For a test operation, format or constraints are critical.

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 states 'Test invite token resolution' and provides the HTTP endpoint, indicating a specific verb (test) on a resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pc_get_invites_by_token or pc_post_invites_by_token_accept, leaving ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pc_get_invites_by_token (which likely retrieves invite details) or pc_post_invites_by_token_accept (which accepts). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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