resend_user_invite

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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive; the description adds the key side-effect scope: a fresh email is sent but the invite record, expiry and role are untouched. It does not mention failure modes (already accepted/expired invite) or repeat-send/rate-limit behavior, which is the remaining gap for a non-idempotent mutation.

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, each load-bearing: the first establishes what makes this distinct from invite_user, the second covers side-effect scope and prerequisite lookups. Front-loaded and zero 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?

With annotations covering safety profile and an output schema present, the description needn't explain returns. It covers differentiation and non-destructive behavior, but omits what happens if the invite is expired/already accepted, a realistic failure an agent would want to anticipate.

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% and invite_id is the only parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond schema, though list_user_invites is named as a way to obtain invite_ids, which is slightly useful context.

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 (resend) plus resource (the email for a pending, unaccepted invite), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling invite_user which creates a new invite. An agent can select this tool 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?

Gives explicit preconditions (invite pending, not accepted) and routes the agent to named alternatives: get_user_invite to verify existence, list_user_invites to discover invite_ids. No when-to-use inference is left to the agent.

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