Agregar miembro al estudio

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states the scope requirement and role options, but fails to disclose important behaviors such as whether an email is sent, error handling for unregistered emails or duplicate members, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 very short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and follows with constraints. However, the structure could be improved by grouping related information, but it remains efficient.

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 lack of annotations and no output schema, the description should provide a fuller picture. It omits details on return values, failure modes, and prerequisites beyond scope. The tool has 4 parameters and a mutation effect, yet the description leaves many operational details uncovered.

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 low (25%), and the description adds some meaning: 'by email' clarifies the email parameter's role, and roles are listed. However, it does not explain studioId or the significance of the optional areaId beyond the schema's minimal description. The description adds moderate value.

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 tool's action: 'Invita a un usuario registrado por email' (invites a registered user by email). It specifies the resource (studio member) and distinguishes from sibling tools like remove or update by focusing on addition.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requiere scope write') but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_studio_member or other invitation methods. It implicitly assumes the user is registered but lacks explicit when-not or comparative context.

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