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

Annotations already indicate the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the 'token-auth' detail and the target scope, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the invitation is sent via channel or just stored), possible rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond token generation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately states the action and the target, earning every word.

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 the 100% schema coverage and the presence of an output schema, the description's concise statement of purpose is mostly sufficient. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether the invitation is actually sent immediately or merely created, which could be important for an agent deciding to use this tool.

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 describes all 9 properties with 100% coverage, so the schema handles parameter documentation. The description adds little beyond mapping 'member/account or contact' to the accountId/contactId fields, which is already implied by the property names.

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 uses the verb 'Create' with the specific resource 'token-auth survey invitation' and specifies the target ('specific member/account or contact'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_survey, create_team_member_invite, and list_survey_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?

The description clearly states the intended use case: creating a survey invitation for a specific member/account or contact. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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