Resend Invitation

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 agent knows this is a non-destructive external side-effect action. The description usefully adds the admin/owner requirement, but it does not disclose email delivery side effects, rate limits, or whether resending invalidates the previous invitation token.

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 short sentences with the action, use case, and permission requirement front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, permission prerequisite, and intended use case. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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%, and the single parameter is documented as 'Invitation id from list_invitations.' The description adds no further parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema already carries the necessary detail.

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 and resource: send an invitation email again. It clearly implies the tool acts on an existing invitation rather than creating one, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as invite_people or revoke_invitation.

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 gives a clear use case—someone did not receive or lost the invitation—and states the required permission level (workspace admin or owner). It does not mention when to choose revoke_invitation or invite_people instead, but the context is sufficiently clear for a simple action.

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