tunnel_invite

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: invites are single-use, expiring, and must be relayed verbatim. It does not mention rate limits or other constraints, but the core mutation (creating invites) is clear. Slightly more detail on the invite lifecycle could improve transparency.

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 sentence followed by an imperative instruction, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and conveys all essential information efficiently.

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 simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, host restriction, invitation nature, and required action (relay to human). No gaps are evident.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the 'count' parameter (integer, 1-15). However, the description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone. While the parameter name is intuitive, the lack of explicit guidance reduces clarity.

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 defines the tool as host-only, creating single-use expiring invites mid-session. It explicitly states the verb 'mint' and the resource 'invites', distinguishing it from sibling tools like tunnel_open which presumably starts sessions.

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 explicitly states 'Host-only', indicating who should use it, and provides clear use cases: 'add a teammate, or re-admit someone who disconnected'. It also notes that old links stay dead, guiding when not to use previous invites.

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