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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the invitee joins via their own Corply session, the invitation is independent of other workflows, and the tool has canonicality/idempotency caveats. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the labeled sections (Prerequisite, Canonicality, Idempotency, Confirmation boundary) are structured and readable. Some phrasing is generic, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, confirmation, side-effect independence, and operational guidance. However, with no output schema and several parameters left semantically unexplained, the agent still lacks enough context to be fully confident about return behavior and role/companyId usage.

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 25%, so the description has a responsibility to clarify parameters. It mentions the email mechanism but does not explain role semantics, the optional companyId, or how _corply_context should be populated beyond what the schema already says.

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 clear action and resource: 'Invite a cofounder to this organization by email.' It is specific about the delivery mechanism, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool invite_cofounders, and it mentions only cofounder while the role parameter supports founder, counsel, advisor, observer, and cofounder.

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 gives explicit use conditions: call only after explicit founder confirmation, require authenticated active organization access, and note that membership is independent of name checks, documents, payment, and signatures. It does not, however, explain when to choose this tool over invite_cofounders or redeem_invite.

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