Contract Testing: Admin Invite Users

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

The description states 'Send invitations' which implies a write operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=true, creating a contradiction. No additional behavioral details beyond the action are provided, and the contradiction undermines transparency.

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 very short and to the point, but it lacks important details. It is efficient but somewhat under-specified.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is still incomplete. It fails to explain the invitation process, expected results, or any prerequisites. The contradiction further decreases completeness.

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% with the same description as the schema for the 'users' parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states the action 'Send invitations to new users' and identifies it as an admin tool, which distinguishes it from sibling admin tools like create or delete user. However, it lacks detail on what the invitation entails.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or context for usage provided. The description is minimal and does not help the agent decide when to invoke it.

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