invite_member

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the invite process and roles but fails to disclose important traits such as required permissions for the inviter, error conditions (e.g., duplicate email), rate limits, or whether the action is reversible. 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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey the action, method, and role definitions. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error handling, and permissions. It covers the basic flow but omits important details like what happens on success or failure, making it only moderately complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

While the description adds context about roles (owner, admin, member) beyond the schema, it introduces an inaccuracy: the schema only allows 'admin' and 'member' as role options, but the description mentions 'owner' as a valid role. This contradiction reduces the value added and may mislead the agent.

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 team member to an organization), the method (by email), and the process (receive email, join via dashboard). It also lists the available roles with descriptions, making the tool's purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 implies usage for inviting members but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., required inviter role) or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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