resend_user_invitation

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

The description does not disclose key behavioral traits such as whether it invalidates previous invitations, idempotency, rate limits, or authentication requirements. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to provide sufficient 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 a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too minimal, omitting necessary details that could be included without excessive length. Every sentence earns its place, but more information would be beneficial.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return values and side effects. It covers the essential action but leaves gaps in behavior specification.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the tool description must compensate but does not. It only states 'Resend an invitation email to a user,' which adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'user_id'. No format or constraints are given.

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 uses a specific verb 'resend' combined with the resource 'invitation email' and target 'user', making the action clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_user' and 'send_portal_message'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., user must exist and have prior invitation), or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternatives or context-specific conditions.

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