accept_invitation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it excellently. It discloses the queued cloud-browser workflow, immediate return shape with status/pendingReason/workflowId, the need to call get_workflow_result, and explains pendingReason variants including outsideWorkingHours. It also warns about duplicate queued work from retries.

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?

Despite being longer than average, each paragraph earns its place: purpose and retry warning, async workflow and result retrieval, and pendingReason semantics. The structure is logical, front-loaded, and free of filler, making it efficient for agent consumption.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity with three conditional parameter shapes, no output schema, and background workflows. The description fully covers the return format, follow-up retrieval via get_workflow_result, retry dangers, and the outsideWorkingHours edge case. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and follow-up.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions with conditional requirements per invitationType. The description adds a helpful reinforcement by saying 'Set invitationType and provide only its matching URL,' clarifying mutual exclusivity. This goes slightly beyond the schema's oneOf structure without needing to duplicate details.

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 'Accepts an incoming connection, company-follow, or newsletter-subscription invitation,' using a specific verb and naming the resource. It also enumerates the three invitation types, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like ignore_invitation and send_connection_request.

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 clear context that this is for accepting incoming invitations and instructs to set invitationType and provide only the matching URL. It also provides critical usage warnings about not retrying while a workflow is running and redirecting to get_workflow_result. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives like retrieve_invitations.

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