invite_user

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

With only destructiveHint=true in annotations, the description carries the real burden and delivers: it discloses that a real email is sent, that ADMIN is a grantable role, and details the two-phase confirmation protocol (elicitation prompt otherwise preview + confirmToken, governed by MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). This is exactly the behavior an agent needs before calling a write 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?

Front-loads the action and resource in the first clause, then explains the confirmation contract. Slightly dense with parentheticals, but every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 an 8-parameter destructive write tool with no output schema, the description covers the safety-critical behavior (real email, ADMIN escalation, mandatory confirmation, fallback token mechanics) that the schema cannot express. An agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, including the confirmToken semantics and visibleAppIds/allAppsVisible interaction. The description adds only the note that roles may include ADMIN, which is minor value beyond the enum already in the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 user to your App Store Connect team') plus the configurable dimension ('with specified roles'). An agent can distinguish this from the sibling invite_beta_tester, which targets beta testers rather than team members.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose (team-member invitation) but the description never says when to use this instead of invite_beta_tester or list_user_invitations, nor any prerequisites for who may invite. It spends its guidance budget on the confirmation flow rather than tool selection.

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