Users: invite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not needed for the safety profile. It still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the API rejects an invite lacking an existing role, administrator roles cannot be assigned through this path, and an email is dispatched. It does not cover failure modes or idempotency beyond the role constraint.

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?

Front-loaded with the primary action, followed by side effects and then prerequisites in four tight sentences. Every clause carries a distinct instruction (role source, rejection condition, admin exclusion, dedup check) with no filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers what the call does and its preconditions adequately. One gap: role_id is not marked required in the schema yet the description says 'Always pass role_id', a tension an agent may have to resolve; it also says nothing about the returned user record or invitation state.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by constraining role_id to values obtained from roles_list and by ruling out administrator roles, information the schema does not carry. It adds no format or constraint detail for email/first_name/last_name, which the schema already documents.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Create a user and send an invitation email') and clarifies the side effects: the person is added to this project with role_id and then emailed to confirm. It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from near-name siblings like accounts_create or signup, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions rather than generic advice: always source role_id from roles_list, and check users_list first to avoid duplicate invites. That is actionable routing guidance, though it stops short of stating when to prefer this over alternatives such as accounts_create or signup.

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