invite_to_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It only describes the basic action and does not mention permissions, whether the inviter must already be a member, failure modes for already-invited users, or what the response contains.

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?

A single clear sentence with no filler or duplication of parameter details. It is well-structured and readable, though it is arguably too thin for a tool with no annotations or output schema.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description leaves important context unstated, such as prerequisites and failure behavior. The two parameters are documented, but that is only a small part of invoking this operation successfully.

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 both parameters ('users' and 'channel') have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds little beyond 'one or more users' and 'Slack channel,' which the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('invite') and resource ('one or more users to a Slack channel'), which clearly identifies the core action. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling membership tools like join_channel or kick_from_channel, though the unique 'invite' action mostly carries that distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., join_channel for self-joining, kick_from_channel for removal) and no exclusions or preconditions. The use case must be inferred entirely from the tool name and verb.

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