create_friend_invite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is mutating, gated by FLIGHTY_ALLOW_WRITES=true, not live-validated, and the mutation behavior has not been live-tested. This is valuable for an agent assessing risk.

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 front-loaded with the operation and endpoint, which is good. However, 'Not live-validated' and 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested' repeat the same caveat, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the write gate, payload schema reference, and validation caveats, but with 0% schema coverage it leaves the query and confirm_destructive parameters unexplained and does not fully describe the invitation creation behavior.

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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It helps by naming the required payload schema via get_schema('ConnectedFriendsInviteLinkAcceptRequestProto') and stating that no path parameters are needed, but it does not explain the query or confirm_destructive parameters at all.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource via the tool name and the POST endpoint '/v1/connected-friends/invite-links'. It is clear this creates a friend invite link, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_friend_invite or accept_friend_invite.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite by stating the tool is mutating and requires FLIGHTY_ALLOW_WRITES=true. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like get_friend_invite or accept_friend_invite.

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