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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: the invite is hard-coded to the agent role, which cannot be chosen via any parameter. It does not cover auth requirements or duplicate-invite behavior, so it is useful but not complete.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the role constraint plus escalation path immediately after.

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 two-param mutation tool whose annotations carry the destructive/readOnly profile, the definition is largely sufficient. However, with no output schema and no schema parameter descriptions, the agent is left guessing about the name parameter's meaning and the invite's side effects.

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% with two required params (name, email), so the description must compensate. It only gestures at 'email' and says nothing about what 'name' represents or its 255-char limit, leaving one of two required parameters entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Invite a new agent by email'), and 'new' distinguishes it from siblings like add_team_member/add_inbox_member that attach existing agents. It also names the sibling (update_agent_role) that handles the adjacent action, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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 tells the agent what to do next when a non-default role is needed ('promote later with update_agent_role'), which is a clear context pointer to the alternative. It stops short of stating prerequisites such as whether the email must be unused or what permissions are required to invite.

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