Invite a subuser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether an invitation email is sent, how duplicate emails are handled, required authorization, or other side effects of creating a subuser.

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 single front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It efficiently states the primary action and key inputs.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It references permissions_list but does not cover invitation behavior, panel selection, inline credential overrides, or file-permission addons.

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 description adds meaning for the email and permissions parameters and points to permissions_list for permission keys. With 67% schema description coverage and nine parameters, it leaves optional overrides and denyfiles/hidefiles semantics largely to the schema.

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: add a user to the server by email with permission keys. It clearly distinguishes creation from listing or deleting subusers, though it does not explicitly differentiate from subuser_update or subuser_set_files.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Add a user' and the reference to permissions_list for permission keys. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus subuser_update, subuser_set_files, or what prerequisites are needed.

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