invite_auth_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the main behavior (create/update + send magic link) and a requirement (service_key, redirect_url), but omits important details like idempotency, error handling, authentication side effects, or what happens on duplicate invites. The description provides minimal but adequate behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that cover the main action and a key prerequisite. No redundant or irrelevant information. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a prerequisite but lacks detail on return values, error scenarios, and whether the operation is idempotent. It is minimally adequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no complex nesting, but would benefit from more contextual information.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. However, it mentions 'service_key' as a requirement, which is not present in the input schema—this could be an external requirement (e.g., header) but is not explained, potentially confusing agents.

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 clearly states the action: 'Create/update a project auth user and send a trusted invite magic link.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (project auth user) and the outcome (invite magic link). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_auth_user (create only) and request_magic_link (send link to existing user).

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 mentions prerequisites ('Requires service_key and an allowed redirect_url'), giving context for when it's appropriate to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios, leaving some ambiguity.

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