Send form invites

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the 100-recipient limit is a local tool cap rather than a provider quota, but it does not disclose that `confirm` must be set, that sending is irreversible, or anything about the follow-up sequence behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence's phrasing ("Local cap100 recipients") is slightly clipped but still readable and earns its place by clarifying the limit's origin.

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?

For a destructive, open-world mutation with 6 params (0 required) and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never mentions the required `confirm` flag or that the mutation cannot be undone, leaving that entirely to the schema and annotations. It is callable, but not fully self-explanatory.

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 83%, so the schema already documents `account`, `confirm`, `form_id`, `payload`, and `payload_file` in detail. The description only echoes the recipient cap (maxItems 100) and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ("Send email invites") and adds scope detail ("using a selected form and its existing follow-up sequence"). It does not need to differentiate from siblings since none of the listed testimonial/link tools overlap with invite sending, so 4 is appropriate.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only contextual note is the recipient cap, which is a constraint rather than usage direction.

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