resend_invite

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses invalidation of previous token, reactivation of cancelled invites, and the required 'usersManager' permission. This adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise and well-structured in three short paragraphs, each addressing a key aspect: action, error case, and permission. No unnecessary 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?

While the description covers the action, error, and permissions, it lacks details on success response and other potential error codes. Given no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 only 25%, with only one parameter described. The tool description mentions the 'id' parameter implicitly but does not explain 'dryRun' or 'Idempotency-Key', leaving gaps in understanding parameter usage.

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 specifies the action: resetting invite expiry, invalidating previous token, and triggering a new email. It distinguishes from siblings like 'invite_user' and 'cancel_invite' by detailing the effect on cancelled invites.

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 explains applicability to any invite state, including cancelled, and mentions a 404 error for missing invites. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use.

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