Create team invite

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true (may create new entities) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by clarifying the role options and that invites target project teams. It doesn't disclose whether invites are sent via email, have expiry, or require review, but the schema notes the 'invited or existing team member' nuance. With annotations covering the non-destructive mutation profile, the description adds reasonable value.

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 focused sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource and immediately enumerates the role choices, exactly what an agent needs. No redundant content.

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 tool with no output schema and 4 params (one of which, idempotency_key, is undocumented), the description could explain more — e.g., what a successful invite returns, whether an invitation has a recipient action, or the idempotency_key's purpose. The sibling tools (resend/revoke) imply invites create pending states, but the description doesn't clarify the post-invite flow.

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 75% with 3 of 4 params documented. The role enum is well-specified, email has format+pattern+maxLength, project_id has pattern and a reference to list_projects. The idempotency_key parameter has NO schema description and no mention in the tool description, which is a gap, but the schema itself is rich for the other three. Description adds the 'admin, member, or viewer' clarity.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Invite') plus resource ('a user to a project team') and enumerates the viable roles. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_team_invites, revoke_team_invite, and resend_team_invite. It doesn't explicitly mention that it also works for existing members (which the role schema description hints at), but the core purpose is 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?

The description implies use for granting project access, and the schema notes roles apply to 'invited or existing team member.' However, there's no explicit guidance on when to choose this vs. update_team_member_role, or whether this tool also requires an existing team when adding a member. The project_id param references list_projects, which offers some pathway context.

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