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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the invitee is listed but has no access until the link is clicked, role controls permissions, empty folder list grants all folders, and member count is capped by the tariff. Only the failure/duplicate-email behavior is left unstated.

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?

Five compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action, each carrying distinct information (mechanism, pending state, role/folder effects, tariff limit). No filler 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the flow and side effects well, including the pending-access state and the tariff cap. It omits error/duplicate-email handling and confirmation of what a successful call returns, but is otherwise sufficient.

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 100% and documents every parameter, including the empty-folder-list rule. The description's explanation of role and folder effects largely restates what the schema already says, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource ('Приглашает человека в аккаунт') and the mechanism (email with a link). This clearly separates it from siblings like add_quiz_email_recipient and resend_workspace_member_invite.

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 implies the invitation context and states a constraint (tariff-limited member count), but never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition. The agent can infer the use case but gets no routing guidance among the many sibling invite/member tools.

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