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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds substantial context beyond them: an email with a link is dispatched, the member is visible in the list but has no access until the link is followed, role determines permissions, an empty folder list grants access to all folders, and member count is capped by the tariff plan.

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-loaded with the core action followed by the pending-state, role/folder, and tariff details. Four tight sentences with no filler. Slightly dense but every sentence carries information.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operational lifecycle (email sent, pending access), permission effects of role_id and folder_ids, and the tariff constraint. It does not describe the return payload, but no output schema exists, so this is a minor gap.

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%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the empty-list semantics for folder_ids (the schema text explicitly says 'Не передавайте или передайте пустой список'). The description largely restates that same meaning rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Приглашает человека в аккаунт' (invites a person into the account). This clearly distinguishes it from read siblings like get_workspace_members and from mutation siblings like remove_workspace_member. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description of the invitation flow (email is sent, member is pending until link click), but the description never states when to choose this tool over siblings such as resend_workspace_member_invite or set_workspace_member_folders/role. Conditions are inferable but not explicit.

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