Accept project invite

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

With no affirmative annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it warns that the returned nv_ key is issued once, must never be emailed, and that unverified invitees must supply an OTP. This is critical behavioral context beyond the bare accept action.

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?

Three dense sentences cover the core action, token source, OTP condition, sensitive return value, and billing implication. There is no fluff, and the most important operational facts are front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the return value (nv_ key), its one-time nature, the OTP prerequisite, and the collaboration context. It could go slightly deeper on failure modes or exactly how the returned key should be used, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already explains token and otp fully. The description reinforces the OTP requirement and token origin but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action and resource: accepting an invite token. It also clarifies the token source and distinguishes this tool from create_project by noting that the caller is not billed, which prevents confusion with project creation.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when accepting an invite, including the local/dev path via invite_project_member. It also gives a useful exclusion by stating create_project still bills the caller, though it does not exhaustively enumerate all alternative tools or explicitly say 'do not use X.'

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