agent_respond_invite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the visible side effect ('The inviter sees the answer'), the disabled-by-default gate requiring an env var, and the acting identity ('the identity in the local credential store'). It omits reversibility (can a decline be undone) and error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then the side effect, then the gating condition and identity. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential unknowns: what it does, who sees it, whether it will run at all, and whose identity is used. The main remaining gap is what happens on failure or whether the action is reversible.

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 both parameters (invite_id, action) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, ID-sourcing, or enum guidance beyond what the schema provides, 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 opens with a specific verb pair and resource: 'Accept or decline a channel invite.' That is unambiguous and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling agent_invite_to_channel, which performs the inverse action. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 a hard precondition for use: the tool is 'Off by default: refused unless the human owner set VOIDLY_MCP_RELAY_ALLOW_STATE_CHANGES=1.' That is a genuinely useful when-you-can-use-it gate. It does not, however, point to alternatives such as agent_list_invites for discovering invites to respond to.

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