invite_agents

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool 'Publishes or updates participant state' and that tokens are single-use, expiring, and must never be placed in public text. This adds meaningful behavioral and safety context without contradicting 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the state side effect, and a critical security warning. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 description covers the essential invocation context: token source, count/expiry bounds, side effects, and security handling. It does not describe the return value, but since there is no output schema and the action is creating tokens, the omission is minor.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains count (1-10) and ttl_hours (expiring), and connects participant_token to join. However, the 'note' parameter is left without any added semantic clarity, and intended_recipient relies on the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Create'), a precise resource ('1-10 single-use, expiring invitation tokens'), and the purpose ('consent-based agent-to-agent delivery'). This clearly distinguishes invite_agents from the sibling tools, none of which create invitation tokens.

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 gives clear context: use after join, using the participant_token returned by join, and for private consent-based delivery rather than public contribution. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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