Invite Team Member

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

Annotations indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and no destructiveness. The description adds behavioral details: an invitation email is sent and the member must accept before gaining access. No contradictions.

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 relatively concise but includes bilingual content (English and Spanish), which may be redundant for a single-language agent. Overall, it is well-structured with clear sections.

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?

The description covers purpose, flow, and roles, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., duplicate invitations, invalid emails) and does not mention the output schema exists. Given the presence of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a usage example and role descriptions, but these largely overlap with schema descriptions. No significant new semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Invite a new member to the workspace by email address') and identifies the resource (team member). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_team_member and update_team_member_role by specifying the invitation flow.

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 context about the invitation process (email sent, acceptance required) and lists roles with descriptions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_team_member_role for role changes).

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