invite_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: workspace assignments are deferred until the invite is accepted, and an API key may be provisioned as a side effect in the same call. It does not cover permissions required or what happens on a duplicate invite.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and its optional side effects, followed by the deferred-effect caveat and the routing hint. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 multi-effect mutation with an output schema, annotations, and full parameter coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral piece (deferred workspace assignment, bundled API key provisioning) and routes follow-up work to the right siblings. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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%, so the enum values for role, the nested workspace objects, and the optional workspace_api_key_details are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Invite a new org user') and immediately names the optional side effects (workspace access, API key) that distinguish it from sibling tools. It also names the sibling tools to use for follow-up workspace changes, so an agent can place it precisely among invite_user, resend_user_invite, add_workspace_member, and update_workspace_member.

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?

It gives clear routing guidance: use add_workspace_member or update_workspace_member for follow-up workspace changes, implying invite_user is the initial-invite path. However, it does not address other plausible alternatives such as resend_user_invite or how it relates to bulk/SCIM provisioning paths, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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