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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, but the description adds material side-effect detail beyond them: supplying an email grants the person access and dispatches an invitation email. This is exactly the kind of behavioral consequence the agent needs, though it omits team/role effects.

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 tightly written sentences with the core side-effect warning placed prominently. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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-parameter mutation tool with only 14% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the invite/access behavior but leaves role, teamId, and teamRole entirely unaddressed, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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 14%, so the description carries most of the burden. It explains the semantics of name and email well, but role, teamId, and teamRole are undocumented in both the schema and the description, leaving a meaningful 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: adding a person to the process behind a landscape node. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like batchAddClarityLandscapeNodePeople or updateClarityLandscapeNodePerson.

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 an explicit conditional constraint: a name alone records a placeholder, while an email grants process access and sends an invite, so only pass an email the user asked to invite. It lacks explicit routing to sibling alternatives (e.g. the batch variant), but the usage condition is clear.

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