Invite People

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: Docmost emails each invitee a join link and password setup, assigns the workspace role and groups, skips emails already in the workspace or already invited, and lists those skipped. It also discloses the admin/owner requirement, which is important context for a non-readOnly, openWorld invitation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then layers in useful behavioral details without excessive length. Each sentence mostly earns its place, though the caution sentence is slightly advisory rather than strictly necessary.

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 an invitation tool with annotations covering safety traits and a full output schema, the description is complete: it covers the email mechanism, role/group assignment, duplicate skipping, prerequisites, and a practical caution. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 emails, role, and groups. The description restates that role is member or admin and groups accept names or ids, adding little meaning beyond the structured parameter definitions.

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 and resource: inviting people to the workspace by email. The action is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling invitation tools such as resend_invitation or revoke_invitation, leaving an agent to infer the boundary.

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 use, including the prerequisite that the caller needs workspace admin or owner permissions, and advises checking addresses first. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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