client_acceptInvite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a state-changing operation (joining a group) but does not disclose potential side effects, required auth state, or success/failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the tool's primary operation and is appropriately sized.

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?

Given it's a mutating operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the outcome of accepting an invite, any dependencies (e.g., active session, valid invite code), or distinguish the group context from channel invites. The sparse description leaves critical context unaddressed.

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%, with both sessionId and inviteCode documented. The description adds no extra meaning about how parameters relate to the action, but the schema already provides baseline clarity. No additional value is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('accept') and resource ('invitation to join a group'), conveying the tool's purpose directly. It distinguishes itself from siblings like groupChat_revokeInvite and channel_acceptChannelAdminInvite by specifying 'group' rather than channel or generic invite operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., having a valid invite code or active session), or contrast with related invite operations such as groupChat_getInviteCode or channel_acceptChannelAdminInvite.

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