Invite a workspace member

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds valuable context: requires a team-scoped credential, role defaults to member, owner is transferred never invited, and returns a pending invitation that the invitee must accept. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies key side effects without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise—three sentences that front-load the main purpose, then add necessary context (token requirement, role default, acceptance flow, workspace lookup). No wasted words, and all information is relevant.

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 moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential context: prerequisites, default role, owner restriction, pending invitation outcome, and next step. It doesn't mention edge cases like duplicate invites, but that's not required for a well-rounded description. The only slight gap is not stating what happens if the email is already invited or a member.

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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), including the role enum with the default mention. The description adds minimal extra value by referencing dropthis_workspaces for the workspace parameter, but the schema alone is sufficient. Baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Invite an email to a team workspace as admin or member'. It also differentiates from sibling tools by clarifying that owners are never invited, and that acceptance is handled by a different tool (dropthis_accept_invitation). The verb 'invite' and resources (email, workspace) are specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: it points to dropthis_workspaces to find the workspace id, and explains the acceptance flow via dropthis_accept_invitation. It also mentions the required credential and role default. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the inclusion of the owner restriction and the accept flow makes the usage context clear.

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