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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: it creates the user AND sends an invitation, returns the new user, and discloses a notable quirk (role missing means no invite and a DECISION_NEEDED response listing role keys rather than silently applying a default). It doesn't discuss auth requirements or idempotency, but the annotation already covers idempotentHint.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action leads, followed by argument intent, then prerequisite/follow-up guidance. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the argument-list and next-step guidance could be tightened slightly.

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 7-param mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the key parameters, prerequisite (create_tenant), alternative (update_user), and return value ('Returns the new user'). The unmentioned 'app' parameter and absence of auth/permission notes are minor gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: role is a KEY from list_roles and must be the developer's explicit choice, tenantName is the NAME from list_tenants while tenantId comes from create_tenant, and firstName/lastName appear in the invitation. Only the 'app' parameter is left 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 (invite) and resource (person into a tenant/customer workspace) and clarifies that Bridge creates the user and sends the invitation. It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_tenant and update_user, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Explicit when/when-not and alternative routing: use create_tenant first when the tenant doesn't exist, update_user to change an existing member's role, and get_integration_guide before writing consuming code. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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