beel_create_invitation

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the token is returned once and never readable again, so it must be delivered to the invitee. It also explains that email is not sent by default and that send_email triggers an email. These details add value beyond readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. It does not mention idempotency behavior or rate limits, but the schema covers idempotency_key, and the core behavioral constraints are well exposed.

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 thorough yet well-organized. It front-loads the core purpose and token delivery warning, then addresses grants and role restrictions, and finally covers email behavior. The endpoint is appended as a minor redundancy since the schema already indicates the HTTP method. Overall, it is efficient and each sentence contributes useful information without excessive padding.

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 with a nested body, role enum, and grants array, the description covers the essential aspects: single-use token, grants rules, role restrictions, and email default. It does not repeat schema details like idempotency_key or specific error codes (which are in the schema), but it provides enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. The description is complete for typical usage, though it could mention the idempotency_key option more explicitly.

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?

The description substantially enhances parameter understanding. It explicitly states that grants is required and explains its usage for MEMBER (including [] for no access), clarifies that grants are only valid for MEMBER because OWNER and ADMIN have implicit access, and notes that OWNER cannot be invited. It also explains the effect of send_email. These clarifications go beyond the already-rich schema descriptions, making the parameter semantics much clearer and more actionable.

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 explicitly states the verb ('creates') and resource ('single-use invitation'), and specifies the return value (acceptance token). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing the single-use nature and the account-join context. No other sibling tool creates invitations, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to invite a person to join the account. It gives important usage guidance such as OWNER cannot be invited, grants are only for MEMBER, and the default email behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., beel_list_invitations, beel_delete_invitation) or state a 'when not to use' condition, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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