Accept an invitation

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

Beyond the annotations (openWorldHint false, destructiveHint false), the description discloses critical behavioral details: the token is single-use, the action joins and switches the active workspace, and it returns the joined workspace. It also notes that a team-scoped credential authenticated as the invited email is required, which is important operational context not available in the annotations.

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 tightly written in two sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose, then packs in parameter selection, prerequisites, side effects, and return value without wasted words. Every clause adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—two mutually exclusive parameters, a required credential, side effects, and a return value—the description covers all essential aspects. It ties into sibling tools (dropthis_invitations) and provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. The presence of an output schema and good annotations further reduces the need for more detail.

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?

While the schema already describes the two parameters, the description adds crucial semantics: it clarifies that token is a raw single-use token from the invite email, invitation_id comes from dropthis_invitations, that at least one is required, and that token takes precedence when both are provided. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions and gives the agent a clear decision rule.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Accept a team-workspace invitation and join.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by labeling it 'the teammate's join path,' contrasting it with inviter-side tools like dropthis_invite_member. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it is the join path for teammates. It explains exactly how to choose parameters, noting that token is from the invite email, invitation_id is the agent path from dropthis_invitations, and that at least one is required with token winning if both are given. It also states the credential requirement (members:write) and the side effect, giving clear context for use.

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