invite_member

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the irreversible email sending and mutation status, but does not cover rate limits, invite expiry, or cancellation methods. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 compact (4 sentences), front-loaded with key behavioral info, and each sentence adds unique value: mutation + irreversibility, purpose, permissions, roles, error case.

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 tool's low complexity, no output schema, and clear annotations (none), the description covers purpose, permissions, side effects, and parameters. Minor omission: invite expiry or how to cancel outside MCP.

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 covers all 3 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the role enum semantics ('admin manages members + instances, member read + cache ops') and the default role, going beyond the schema's type constraints.

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 ('invite'), resource ('team member to a Cachly organization'), and action ('sends an invite email'). It distinguishes from siblings by calling out its mutation nature and irreversibility.

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 specifies caller requirements (admin/owner), valid roles with descriptions, and error conditions (already member/pending). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, though no direct sibling exists.

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