invite_to_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the authorization requirement (GROUP_ADMIN) and the asynchronous outcome (the recipient gets a pending invitation they can accept or decline). It stops short of covering failure cases such as an already-invited or already-member user.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action front-loaded, then the permission requirement, then the recipient-side outcome. Every sentence carries information and none is wasted.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: who may invoke it and what the invitation lifecycle looks like. Edge-case behavior (duplicate invites, response shape) is left unaddressed, but the core picture is complete.

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%, and the schema already documents all three parameters including the role enum and its MEMBER default. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (invite), the resource (a user to a group), and the mechanism (by their email address). This cleanly separates it from the read-oriented group siblings (list_groups, get_group_details) without ambiguity.

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?

It establishes a clear precondition for use ('Requires GROUP_ADMIN role in the target group'), which tells an agent whether the call is permissible. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the group-management sibling set is small and mostly read-only, so context is fairly clear.

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