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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it explicitly says the tool mutates data, sends email invitations, and requires TEAMS_WRITE. This gives the agent important side-effect and authorization information.

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 extremely concise, with no filler. It front-loads the mutating nature, then covers required parameters, optional parameter, GraphQL mapping, and permission requirements in three tight sentences.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: required fields, optional field, GraphQL operation, and permission. It does not discuss edge cases like duplicate invites or email validation, but these are not necessary for basic correct invocation.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds slight value by restating required and optional parameters and mapping to the GraphQL mutation, but it does not substantially deepen parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('send'), names the resource (team invitations by email), and distinguishes the operation as a mutation. It clearly identifies the tool's core function apart from the generic parabol_graphql and parabol_query siblings.

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 states required inputs and the required TEAMS_WRITE permission, giving clear context for when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or explain when to use this convenience tool versus the generic parabol_graphql endpoint.

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