resend_user_invite

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

The description clarifies that the tool 'sends a fresh email without modifying the invite record, expiry, or role', which complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by specifying the non-destructive nature despite being a mutation. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences that efficiently deliver purpose, behavior, usage differentiation, and prerequisite tool recommendations without any redundant information.

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?

Given the simple parameter set and comprehensive annotations, the description provides complete context including behavior, side effects (none), and usage hints. No gaps remain for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 coverage is 100% (single parameter invite_id with clear description). The tool description does not add further semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the parameter, thus baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Resend the email for a pending invite that has not been accepted') and contrasts with sibling tool 'invite_user' which creates a new invite, making the purpose and distinction unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (for resending pending invites) and when not (use invite_user to create new invites). Additionally, recommends calling get_user_invite first to verify invite existence and list_user_invites to discover IDs, providing excellent usage context.

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