resend_invite

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

Annotations cover openWorldHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds material context beyond them: the SAME token is reused (explaining the idempotent behavior) and the TTL is extended by 14 days. It also states an auth requirement ('account-wide key'). It does not say what happens if the invite is no longer pending.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the action and its consequences; the plan and auth requirements follow immediately. The stray '[#4dd71c]' token is minor noise but does not dilute the payload.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: eligibility, plan restriction, auth scope, and the token/TTL side effects. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100% – the schema already documents invite_uuid and its origin (list_invites). The description adds no format or sourcing detail 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Re-send a pending invite's email') with the operative behavior spelled out (SAME token, +14 day TTL). It is clearly distinguishable from invite_member (which creates a new invite) and revoke_invite (which cancels one) without opening any 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?

The description scopes eligibility to pending invites and states a plan prerequisite (agency / Enterprise), which is real when-to-use context. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling to use when the invite is not pending or when the user actually wants a fresh invite (invite_member).

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