collaboration_org_invitation_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the write operation and the required confirmed flag, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether an email is sent, if the invitation is pending, or idempotency). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states the core purpose, second adds a key constraint and a differentiator from the console UI. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not hint at the return value (e.g., invitation object) or error conditions. For a write operation with six parameters, missing details on response and side effects make it incomplete.

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 50%. The description adds value for teamIds ('optionally pre-assigning them to one or more teams') and confirmed ('requires confirmed=true'). Other parameters (role, expiresInDays) lack additional context beyond the schema. Partially compensates for coverage gaps.

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 user to an organization' and highlights the optional pre-assignment to teams, which distinguishes it from the Console UI limitation. This provides a specific verb+resource and differentiates from siblings like acceptance 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 notes that the Console UI cannot bind team_ids, indicating when this tool is preferable. It also specifies 'requires confirmed=true' as a prerequisite for the write operation. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives among sibling tools.

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