Resend team invite

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

The description states it 'replaces its expiration and token' for a pending invite, indicating a mutation that regenerates credentials. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which are consistent. However, it doesn't disclose side effects like whether the previous token becomes invalid immediately, whether this requires specific team-admin permissions, or what happens when a non-pending invite is targeted.

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 concise sentence conveys the action clearly. No wasted words, though the sentence packs two ideas (resend + replace expiration/token) efficiently.

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 2 required params, an idempotency key param, and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It doesn't clarify the meaning/usage of idempotency_key (though schema gives max/min length), nor does it explain what 'pending' means or whether this tool applies only to pending invites (a search semantics detail). Sibling revoke_team_invite and create_team_invite provide context, but the description could better distinguish resend semantics.

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 67%, so two required params (invite_id, project_id) have descriptions in the schema. The idempotency_key parameter is undocumented in schema and undescribed in the tool description, which is a gap. The description adds the behavioral meaning that the tool regenerates expiration/token, but doesn't clarify which parameters drive that behavior beyond the obvious invite_id.

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 verb 'Resend' plus the object 'a pending team invitation' clearly states the action and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like create_team_invite (creation) and revoke_team_invite (cancellation). The extra detail about replacing expiration and token adds precision.

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 this is for re-sending invites but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs create_team_invite or revoke_team_invite. It doesn't say whether it's for expired invites specifically or any pending invite. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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