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

Discloses that it's a write operation (invite) and adds behavioral context: the result explains how to add a paid seat, and it suggests proposing a plan change if not on Team. Does not contradict annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). Adds value beyond annotations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then scoping, permission, and fallback actions. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, permission, conditional alternatives, and explains the team concept. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call it.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for the email parameter. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific details beyond 'by email', which is already implied. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (invite), resource (colleague to Team workspace), and method (by email). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning team_add_seats and account_change_plan as alternatives.

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?

Explicitly states permission requirements (only owners/admins can invite) and provides conditional guidance: when no seat is free, points to team_add_seats; when not on Team, points to account_change_plan. Gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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