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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds substantial context they don't: required login and OWNER/ADMIN authority, immediate push to the invitee, acceptance meaning join-without-review, a daily cap (每组织日≤200), and the exact set of cases routed to skipped rather than failure (existing members, pending, 30-day rejects, removed, blocked, cloud users). This is precisely the behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the gating requirements (login/role) before the action, then limits, then edge-case handling, then sibling routing — a sensible order. It is dense and somewhat run-on in a single paragraph, but every clause (permissions, cap, skipped semantics, sibling pointers) earns its place.

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 no nested objects, the description covers what an agent needs: authority requirements, batch limits, rate cap, the side effect (push), acceptance semantics, and how non-invitable targets are reported. Nothing material is left to inference.

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% — the schema already documents organizationId, userIds (≤30), and message (≤200 chars, shown in push/banner). The description restates the ≤30 and ≤200 limits but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (点名邀请 organization members) and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_organization_invite_candidates for verifying people and list_organization_member_invites for follow-up. An agent can tell what this does and what it is not without opening any 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?

Gives explicit prerequisites (需登录, OWNER/ADMIN role), the trigger condition (确认名单后点名邀请), and named alternatives for the adjacent steps (核对人 via search_organization_invite_candidates, 跟进 via list_organization_member_invites). When-to-use and which-sibling-to-use are both spelled out.

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