resend_invite

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permission requirements, return values, or error conditions. The only hint is 'mutation', which is derived from the name itself rather than an explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 cluttered dump of parameter names and a long, truncated example. It repeats schema information without adding useful structure or front-loaded purpose. A minimal, focused explanation would be more concise and useful.

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?

With 14 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides almost no operational context. It never explains what resending an invite means, when it should be called, or what the expected outcome is, making the tool effectively unusable for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists variable names and provides an example, but the example is truncated and does not clarify the purpose of the many filter/order parameters. The required 'user' parameter is not semantically explained beyond the schema's type label.

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 only restates the tool name and operation type ('User · mutation resendInvite'), with no explanation of what resending an invite actually does. It fails to provide a specific verb+resource purpose and does not distinguish from sibling user-management tools.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or any exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision-making support.

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