invite_person

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'invite,' which implies sending an invitation, but does not clarify whether the invitee is immediately added to the list or must accept first (as suggested by accept_list_invite). It also does not mention permissions required, side effects, or reversibility. The absence of such details makes behavior ambiguous.

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 concise sentence with no waste, which is efficient. However, it is so short that it omits essential information. It is appropriately sized for its simplicity but under-specified, so it does not fully earn its place; it could be expanded without adding 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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 params, no annotations, an output schema present), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the invitation flow, any requirements, or what the output represents. An agent would need to guess at behavior, making this insufficient for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. However, it says nothing about list_id, recipient_alias, or can_reserve. The agent has no clue what 'recipient_alias' means (e.g., username vs email) or what 'can_reserve' does. This is a critical deficiency for a tool with three parameters.

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 the verb 'Invite' and the resource 'a named ShopsApp user to one list.' It distinguishes from accept_list_invite and list_my_invites by implying the act of sending an invitation. However, it could be more explicit about the meaning of 'named' (i.e., recipient_alias) and the fact that this is about sending, not accepting.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like accept_list_invite, nor any prerequisites (e.g., must the recipient be a ShopsApp user? Must I be the list owner? Does the invite require acceptance?). The description leaves the agent to infer usage context, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

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