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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the meaning of the 'active' flag, i.e. that access can be granted while the invite is unaccepted and thus unused. It doesn't discuss reversibility or permission requirements beyond that, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four sentences that are mostly load-bearing, with the core operation stated first and the sibling contrast second. Slightly more prose than strictly needed, but no sentence is filler.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative routing, and even the shape/meaning of the 'members' result (the active flag). Remaining gaps — error behavior and permission requirements — are minor.

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 the action enum with members/add/remove semantics is already documented in the schema. The description adds no param-level syntax or constraints beyond that, 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 resource and three concrete operations ('показывает, у кого он есть, и выдаёт или снимает его одному человеку'), and explicitly contrasts its perspective with the sibling set_workspace_member_folders, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the alternative (set_workspace_member_folders), describes how it differs (overwrites the whole folder list for one member), and states the condition that selects this tool — pointwise edits ('для точечной правки годится этот инструмент'). This is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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