Принять приглашение

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, so the safety profile is largely covered externally. The description adds that the action is performed on behalf of the current user and joins a case, but does not disclose permission requirements, reversibility of joining, or error 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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though minimal enough that it leaves gaps rather than being padded.

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 simple one-parameter accept action with rich annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the action, actor, and input source adequately. It stops short of describing the resulting state change (user becomes a case participant) or failure modes, but nothing critical is missing for 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 100% and the token parameter is already documented in the schema (including 'without address and path'). The description only restates that the token comes from the invite link, adding no further syntax or constraint detail beyond 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 states a specific verb and outcome ('Вступает в дело' – joins a case) and the mechanism (invitation token, acting as the current user). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling invite tools (create/revoke/get), though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers the tool applies when it has a token from an invite link. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative (e.g., invites_get, members_list) for related tasks.

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