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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real behavior: who may call it and that the invite link is single-use. It omits whether an email is actually dispatched, what happens if the person is already a member, and whether the link is returned in the response.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the permission gate, then the single-use caveat. No 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 3-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers role and authorization but leaves shop_id, duplicate-invite behavior, and any return value (invite link?) unspecified. Adequate to attempt a call, not to call it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'role' via the office/field wording and implies 'email', but 'shop_id' — the scoping parameter present on every required call — is never mentioned, leaving a required parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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 verb and resource ('Invite a person by email') and names the role values that distinguish the two invite flavors. It is clearly the entry-point sibling to members_accept/members_changeRole, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Gives an authorization prerequisite ('Owners and office can invite'), which is genuinely useful context, but never says when to use this versus members_changeRole, members_accept, or members_list. Usage is implied by the role enum rather than explained.

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