Invite editor

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: Milanote emails an invite link, status becomes invited or active depending on whether the recipient has an account, account email verification is required, and plan limits apply. It also explains that removal in the Share dialog undoes the invite, complementing the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting it.

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 core action and then adds only useful operational context: email/status behavior, prerequisites, plan limits, and undo path. Every sentence contributes to correct selection or invocation.

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?

Complete for a two-parameter mutation with no output schema. It explains side effects, recipient statuses, prerequisites, and how to undo, which is enough for an agent 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds that board access includes boards inside it, but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema baseline.

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 someone by email to edit a board and its nested boards. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like remove_editor and get_sharing.

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?

Provides clear usage context: it mirrors Share > Invite editors via email, requires a verified account email, and notes free-plan sharing limits. It also mentions undoing via the Share dialog, though it does not explicitly route to the sibling remove_editor tool.

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