invite_beta_tester

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing that a real email is sent, that user confirmation is required, how the elicitation path differs from the confirmToken fallback, and that the token must never be invented or reused. This is exactly the side-effect and safety context an agent needs for an externally visible write.

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?

Front-loads the action and its real-world side effect, then describes the confirmation flow. Dense but every clause carries information; the confirmation sentence is long though justified by the non-trivial two-step protocol.

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?

For a mutation with no output schema, it covers the essential behaviors: the email side effect, the optional targeting, and the full confirmation protocol including the phase-1 preview/confirmToken response. What it omits is return-value or error detail beyond the preview, and explicit sibling routing.

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 100%, so every parameter (email, buildIds, betaGroupIds, names, confirmToken) is already documented in the schema with equal or more detail. The description only restates that group/build targeting is optional, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond structured fields, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Invite a new beta tester by email') plus the concrete effect ('sends a real email') and the optional scope (beta groups/builds). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like invite_user or add_testers_to_beta_group without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly explains the confirmation workflow and the two-step confirmToken fallback path, which is exactly what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It does not, however, route the agent between this tool and the sibling invite_user or add_testers_to_beta_group, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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