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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the owner/paid-plan authorization requirement and the encrypted-team key-wrapping-to-single-use-token mechanism. It does not cover delivery (does an email get sent?), rate limits, or failure modes.

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?

Three tight sentences: action first, then prerequisites, then the edge-case behavior for encrypted teams. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and only two fully documented parameters, the description covers what an agent most needs: what it does, who may call it, and the non-obvious encryption consequence. Only the post-invocation lifecycle (invite email, acceptance via muninn_team_invite_accept) is left implicit.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents teamId and email. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Invite someone to a team by email') with a clear scope. The 'by email' qualifier implicitly separates it from muninn_team_add_member, but no sibling is named, so differentiation requires the reader to infer it.

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?

Explicit preconditions are given: the caller must be the team owner and on the paid plan. There is no statement of when NOT to use it or a pointer to muninn_team_invite_accept / muninn_team_add_member as alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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