Invite project member

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral constraints: the Pro/Scale requirement, the owner-only admin privilege, and the security caution about the owner's nv_ key. These are useful behavioral/authorization details not present in the structured fields. It does not detail side effects like email delivery or duplicate invite handling, but the annotations already establish this is a non-read, non-idempotent mutation.

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 compact, with the primary action front-loaded and four short sentences covering purpose, prerequisites, alternative routing, and a security note. The sentence about create_project is slightly awkward and could be clearer, but overall there is no wasted content.

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 targeted invitation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key prerequisites, role restrictions, and a pointer to the alternative creation tool. It could additionally mention how pending invitations are managed by sibling tools like revoke_project_invite or accept_project_invite, but the essential information for invoking the tool correctly is present.

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 already documents all 3 parameters with 100% coverage, including role enum and email format. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mostly restating the email-based invite action and the owner/admin constraint already present in the role description. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 — inviting a collaborator by email — with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes from create_project by directing callers to use that tool for new project creation, which disambiguates the sibling set.

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 provides concrete usage context: it requires Pro/Scale on the project owner, restricts admin invitations to the owner, and points to create_project as the alternative when creating a new project. It does not explicitly contrast with invitation lifecycle siblings like accept_project_invite or revoke_project_invite, but the core usage conditions are clear.

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