invite_member

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool sends an email, has a 21-day expiration, is non-modifiable, and has role restrictions. This provides sufficient transparency for an agent to understand side effects.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 output schema exists (providing return structure) and no annotations, the description covers key behavioral aspects. It could mention that invites can be deleted via 'delete_invite', but overall it is complete for an invitation tool.

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%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining expiration, non-modifiability, and the admin restriction. These details help the agent understand the implications of the 'confirm' parameter and the role limitations.

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 tool invites a new member to the organization, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_workspace_member' (workspace-level) and 'delete_invite' (cancellation).

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?

Provides important usage constraints: invitation expires in 21 days, cannot be modified once created, and cannot grant the 'admin' role. It also directs that admins must be promoted via Console. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, it gives clear context for when to use.

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