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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: an already-accepted member receives no email, which is not derivable from the annotations alone, though permissions and rate limits remain 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary use condition is front-loaded, and the exclusion case follows immediately.

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 low-complexity mutation with full parameter documentation and relevant annotations, the description covers the key trigger and no-op case. It could mention permissions or response behavior, but those are secondary given the annotations and schema.

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 both member_id and workspace_id are documented in the schema with provenance hints. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (resends an invitation) and resource (workspace member), plus the trigger conditions. The word 'повторно' and the lost-email/expired-link context clearly distinguish it from an initial invite operation.

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 says when to use it (lost email or expired link) and when not to use it (the member already accepted the invitation). It does not name the alternative sibling invite_workspace_member, so tool routing is not fully explicit.

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