yougile_invite_user

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

The description adds 'by email' as a behavioral detail not present in annotations, indicating the invitation mechanism. However, it does not disclose other traits such as side effects, permission requirements, or behavior when the user already exists. With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=false, the added value is marginal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the core action and method efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the core purpose and method, and the annotations cover safety traits. Some additional context about invitation behavior could be added, but it is not critically incomplete.

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%, with both 'email' and 'isAdmin' clearly described in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('invite') and resource ('user to the company'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like yougile_delete_user and yougile_update_user. The action and scope are unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools for user management, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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