github_create_org_invitation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the exactly-one rule, role choices, and optional team_ids, which adds behavioral context. However, it lacks disclosure of required permissions, side effects (e.g., creating a pending invitation), or rate limits. The description is not contradictory but is not rich enough for a full 4.

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 well-structured docstring with a one-line summary and a concise Args block. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. The description explains all parameters and the key constraint. It doesn't mention permissions or that the invitation is pending until accepted, but for a create-invitation tool with sibling context, it is reasonably complete. The existence of an output schema lowers the burden.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter with meaning (invitee_id as GitHub numeric user ID, email for users without ID, role with allowed values, team_ids as optional list). This goes well beyond the schema's type/default info and clarifies the mutual exclusivity constraint.

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 begins with 'Invite a user to the organization', a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like github_list_org_members or github_cancel_org_invitation. It also clarifies the two possible identifiers (user ID or email) and the overall action.

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?

Provides explicit usage constraint 'Exactly one of invitee_id or email must be provided' and explains the role options and team_ids as optional. It implies when to use (when you need to invite someone) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_org_membership, though the purpose itself is clear enough.

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