wrike_invite_user

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects or behavioral traits, but it only says 'Invite a user to the account.' It does not mention that an invitation email will be sent, whether admin permissions are required, whether the invitation is reversible, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, it's arguably too terse to be a complete guide, so it doesn't earn the top score for structure.

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?

This is a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description only states the high-level purpose and fails to explain the invitation process, required permissions, possible outcomes, or return values. Given the tool's complexity, the description is under-specified.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional param semantics, and the schema descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'User role' without valid values or constraints), but the description doesn't compensate for these nuances.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Invite') and resource ('a user to the account'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_contact or create_group, so it's slightly less specific than ideal.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wrike_create_contact or wrike_list_invitations. There are no prerequisites, use-case scenarios, or exclusions mentioned.

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