Создать приглашение

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context: the server does not send the link, and anyone with the link can join with the specified role. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's side effects and security implications.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause adds value. It avoids redundancy and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

With 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the result. It implies the tool returns a link (since the server does not send it) but does not explicitly state the return format. It also omits any permission prerequisites, but overall it covers the essential behavior well for a creation tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value to parameter understanding—it mentions 'specified role' but does not elaborate on the case default, email restriction, max_uses, or TTL. The schema already provides clear per-parameter descriptions, so the description is not required to repeat them.

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 action: 'Делает ссылку для вступления в дело' (makes a link to join a case). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like invites_revoke by focusing on creation. It also adds the important detail that it works for unregistered users.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to generate an invitation link) and clarifies that the server does not send the link, so the user must distribute it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though this is a straightforward create operation.

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