Create team invite

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say an invitation email is dispatched, what happens when the user is already a member, or how idempotency_key affects retries, which are the behavioral details an agent would actually need.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the mutation it performs and the untapped room for routing guidance.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, four parameters, and an unexplained idempotency key, the description is under-specified. It omits the side effect (email sent), the behavior for already-existing members, and any distinction from resend/update siblings, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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%: email, project_id, and role all carry schema descriptions, and the enum already enumerates the three roles that the description merely repeats. The undocumented idempotency_key is not explained in the description either, so it neither compensates for the gap nor adds meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 user to a project team') and names the grantable roles, so the agent immediately knows the operation. It does not, however, distinguish this from closely related siblings such as resend_team_invite or update_team_member_role, leaving the boundary between creating a new invite and re-issuing an existing one to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: nothing says whether an existing pending invite should be handled with resend_team_invite instead, nor any prerequisite such as project admin rights. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.

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