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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that nothing happens until confirmation, that the invitee gets an email only after confirming, that skill ratings are set later, and that the result includes the review link. This is meaningful side-effect and return context for a mutation tool, none of which the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations convey.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core action and then the critical 'proposal only' constraint. Dense but every clause contributes; nothing feels padded.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and sparse schema coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral essentials (deferred effect, result link) and most parameter identities. Only the 'summary' parameter's role and field formats are left unaddressed, a minor gap.

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 only 20%, so the description does useful work naming teamKey, name, email, and the optional role. However, it never explains the required 'summary' parameter (there is a schema description for it), and it gives no format or constraint guidance for the undocumented fields. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 ("a proposal to invite a person to one of the signed-in person's teams") and immediately clarifies the scope limitation ("stores a proposal only"), which is exactly what distinguishes it from the sibling propose_* variants and any actual-invite tool. An agent can tell what this does 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?

The description makes the usage context clear: it's a proposal that only takes effect once confirmed on welance.com/directory, so the agent knows this is the pre-confirmation step. It doesn't explicitly name a when-not condition or point to a specific alternative sibling, which keeps it from a 5.

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