user_invite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this sends emails (an external action) and grants product access (a permission change), it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this requires admin permissions, what happens if emails are invalid, whether invitations can be resent, rate limits, or what the expected response looks like. For a tool with mutation capabilities and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes the key qualification about optional product access. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

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 tool that performs user invitations (a mutation with external email effects) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after invocation - whether users receive immediate emails, what the invitation contains, whether there are confirmation steps, or what the tool returns. The description should provide more context about this non-trivial operation.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'optional product access' which aligns with the optional productIds parameter, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default behaviors, or usage patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Send email invitations') and target ('to new users'), with additional context about optional product access. It distinguishes from siblings like user_create or user_update by focusing specifically on invitation functionality rather than user record management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like user_get or user_list.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like user_create (which might create users without invitations) or user_update (which might modify existing users). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical scenarios for sending invitations versus other user management operations.

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