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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false, and the description substantially enriches that with mutation behavior: it mints a NEW link and KILLS the previous one, explains why (only a hash is stored), and discloses the side effect that it counts against the same seat cap as inviting. This is exactly the beyond-annotation context that matters for a destructive-ish write.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and condition, then the destructive-link behavior, then the parameter source. Zero filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Combined with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, and parameter sourcing, leaving no meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 100%, so all three parameters including invite_id, slug, and org_id are already documented. The description restates the invite_id source ('from findagent_list_invites') in line with the schema, adding no new syntactic or semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Send an organization invite again') and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like invite_member and revoke_invite by framing it as a re-send of an existing invite. An agent can tell what it does and when it applies without opening the schema.

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?

Gives the triggering condition clearly ('for one that expired or was never received') and the permission prerequisite ('owner/admin only'). It notes the original cannot be re-sent (only a hash is stored), which explains the constraint, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative for the invite-creation case.

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