play_invite_testers

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one useful requirement (testers.write permission), but it does not explain side effects, whether existing testers are replaced, whether invites are sent immediately, or what the response returns. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a brief permission note. It is not padded, though it could convey more useful information without becoming verbose.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves substantial gaps: packageName semantics, track semantics, behavioral effects, and when to use this instead of sibling tools. An agent would know what the tool does in general but would likely guess on several important details.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains 'emails' and 'track' but never mentions 'packageName', does not clarify track's allowed values or optionality, and gives no details about email format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to call the tool correctly.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Regista emails para um track de teste' (registers emails for a test track), which unambiguously conveys the tool's core action. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no other sibling appears to handle test-track invitations, so the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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 a permission prerequisite ('Exige testers.write') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as permissions_request or play_publish. There is no context for selecting among the sibling tools.

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