directus_invite_user

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentioning 'invite' implies sending an email, but doesn't confirm this, nor disclose expiration behavior, invitation token generation, pending user states, or idempotency (can you invite the same email twice?).

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?

Extremely brief (one line), but front-loaded with irrelevant metadata ('[UNIFIED]'). Length is appropriate for the content provided, though content is insufficient for the parameter complexity.

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 4-parameter tool with zero schema documentation and no output schema, the description is inadequate. Missing: what constitutes a valid role, what happens upon success (return value), and whether the invited user is immediately queryable via directus_get_user.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description fails to compensate. No explanation of 'site' (instance identifier?), 'role' (ID or name format?), or 'invite_url' (custom redirect vs default?). Only hints at 'email' via 'by email' phrase.

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?

States the core action ('Invite a user') and method ('by email'), but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is implementation noise that adds no value. Fails to distinguish from sibling directus_create_user or supabase_invite_user, leaving ambiguity about when to invite versus create directly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., directus_create_user). No mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or workflow context (e.g., whether the user already exists).

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