Invite member

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations by disclosing that typst.app sends the invitation and that user confirmation is required first. It does not cover failure cases such as duplicate invitations, but the key external side effect is surfaced.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The confirmation requirement is placed after the purpose, which is an appropriate order.

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 mutation tool with an external invitation side effect and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what happens and that user approval is needed. It could say more about invited-user status or duplicate handling, but the core call requirements are 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?

Schema coverage is moderate at 67%, with access and project_id described directly in the schema. The description only adds that the invite is sent by email, which does not materially expand on the parameter definitions.

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: invite someone to a project by email. This is clear enough to distinguish it from remove/update member operations, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It gives a clear precondition: ask the user before inviting anyone. The invitation-by-email framing also implies the use case, but there is no explicit routing guidance for existing members versus new invitees.

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