reinvite_org_member

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

Minimal disclosure of behavior. Annotations are absent, and the description does not mention side effects (e.g., sends email), state changes, or what happens if the member is already active. The agent is left guessing.

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?

Extremely concise with no wasted words. However, the single sentence is not structured (e.g., no bullet points or sections), but for a simple action this is acceptable.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is too terse. It does not explain what re-inviting entails, such as whether it sends a new invitation email or resets an expiry, leaving important context 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with a description for memberId. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Re-invite a member' clearly indicates the action (re-inviting) and the resource (member). It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like invite_org_member or restore_org_member.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify prerequisites (e.g., member exists but invite expired) or when to prefer invite_org_member instead.

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