ignore_invitation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and exceeds expectations. It discloses the asynchronous cloud-browser workflow, immediate return with pending status, and the need to call get_workflow_result for final results. It also explains pendingReason values (queued, outsideWorkingHours) and advises against duplicate 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?

Although the description is long, every sentence provides essential operational detail about the workflow, return values, and retry behavior. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core action, but slightly verbose for a simple ignore action.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the immediate response, workflow mechanics, how to retrieve final results, and how to interpret pending reasons. It is complete for the tool's complexity and integration with get_workflow_result.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with detailed explanations for each parameter, including enums and conditional URLs. The description only reinforces that only the matching URL should be provided, which is already encoded in the oneOf schema, adding marginal value.

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 states it ignores incoming connection, company-follow, or newsletter-subscription invitations, using a specific verb+resource structure. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept_invitation and retrieve_invitations.

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 provides explicit instructions on setting invitationType and providing only the matching URL, and warns against retrying while the workflow is running. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like accept_invitation for accepting, so it lacks direct when-to-use-versus-alternative guidance.

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