Invite a user

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by disclosing that admin rights and a free seat are required, which is crucial behavioral context. It does not detail side effects or response format, but for a simple invite operation this is sufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by prerequisites. Every word adds value with no redundancy or clutter.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose and prerequisites adequately. It omits details about the response or potential errors, but these are not critical for correct invocation. Slightly more detail on what happens after the invitation would improve 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 description coverage is 100%: both 'email' and 'workspace_id' have descriptive text, including the fallback behavior for workspace_id. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond the schema, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'Sends' and a clear resource 'workspace invitation', immediately distinguishing it from other user-management tools like clockify_remove_user or clockify_set_user_status. It also mentions the workspace context, making it 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?

Provides clear context for when to use by stating prerequisites: 'Needs admin rights and a free seat.' This tells the agent whether it can invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use, so it falls short of a 5.

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