agent_invite_to_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose real behavior: default-off gating tied to a named environment allowlist, members-only channel restriction, and that the call acts as the identity in the local credential store (auth/side-effect context). It stops short of describing the invite lifecycle – whether the target must respond, or what a successful invite returns.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope before the gating condition. Dense but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 4-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, refusal behavior, and identity/auth context. The main gap is the post-invite lifecycle (response flow, expiry semantics beyond the schema default), which the agent must infer from sibling tools.

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 all four parameters (did, channel_id, message, expires_hours) are already documented in the schema, including the default expiry. The description adds no format, constraint, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (invite) plus the resource and its scope (an agent, to a private members-only channel), which cleanly separates it from siblings like agent_join_channel and agent_respond_invite. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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 gives an important precondition – the call is refused unless the human owner has allowlisted the recipient in VOIDLY_MCP_RELAY_ALLOWED_RECIPIENTS – which tells the agent when the tool will fail. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as agent_create_channel, agent_join_channel, or agent_respond_invite, leaving the routing decision implicit.

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