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

Annotations already state destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds important behavioral context beyond those annotations: the prior token is invalidated, delivery may be uncertain, and company_list_team should be inspected before retrying. It does not describe permissions, rate limits, or response shape, but the key side effects are disclosed.

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 compact sentences with no wasted wording. The action and side effect are front-loaded, followed immediately by the confirmation and retry caveat.

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 two-parameter mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important behavioral takeaway: resending invalidates the old token and retrying requires inspection first. It could additionally mention required permissions or expected success behavior, but the essential calling context is present.

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%, and both required parameters are documented as exact Company IDs that must not be personal platformIds. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: resend a selected Agency team invitation by email. It also clarifies the side effect of invalidating the previous token, which distinguishes it from a plain invite. It does not explicitly contrast with company_revoke_invitation or company_invite_member, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: confirm intent before calling, and inspect company_list_team after uncertain delivery before retrying. This covers the main risky scenario for a non-idempotent resend. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over revoke_invitation or invite_member, but the context is clear.

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