Invite user

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

Discloses non-obvious side effects: may send email, 'additive write', inconclusive responses may still result in a pending user, and the return value never includes the acceptance URL. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations (which only indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.) and aligns with 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 densely packed but highly structured: action, side effects, parameter guidance, preconditions, and failure semantics in five sentences. No redundant words; every sentence contributes critical information.

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 mutation side effects, permission requirements, and ambiguity of outcome, the description covers preconditions, parameter implications, and return-value limitations. The presence of an output schema means it doesn't need to list response fields, so it is complete for an AI agent's decision-making.

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?

Although the schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100%), the description adds domain meaning: email as the future account login, role's distinction from project membership, and omission behavior. This enhances understanding beyond the enum and default values.

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 creates a pending invitation (additive write) and may send email. It distinguishes from sibling tools like n8n_users_get and n8n_users_list by specifying the create/invite action and pending-invitation semantics.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call n8n_users_get first when the user may already exist, warns that owner invitations are rejected, and states required permissions (unsafe mode + invite permission). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context beyond simple tool selection.

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