Invite Team Member

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

Discloses key behaviors: an invitation email is sent, the member must accept before gaining access, and lists available roles. Annotations confirm a write operation with no destructive or idempotent traits, and the description adds context beyond that.

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?

Reasonably concise but includes bilingual text that duplicates information. The key details are front-loaded, but the repetition reduces efficiency.

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?

Covers the invitation flow, role options, and example. Assumes output schema explains return values. Missing prerequisites (e.g., required permissions) and fails to mention that the invitee must not already be a member, but overall adequate for a simple invite action.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example and expanding role meanings (e.g., 'admin (manage account, no billing)'), which helps the agent understand parameter usage.

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?

Clearly states 'invite a new member to the workspace by email address', using a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_team_members and remove_team_member, though fails to explicitly note that inviting an existing member is not allowed.

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?

Mentions that an invitation email is sent and acceptance is required, but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., update_team_member_role for role changes) or include prerequisites or when not to use it.

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