Invite user

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, aligning with the mutation described. The description adds behavioral context: it invites exactly one non-owner and requires exact confirmation, which surpasses annotation-only information. No contradictions.

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?

Description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate purpose and conditions.

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?

Description is brief and covers the core purpose but misses details about the role parameter, output/return values (output schema exists), and side effects. For a tool with three parameters, more completeness would be beneficial. Adequate but with gaps.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only confirmation has a description). The description mentions 'exact email confirmation' but does not explain the format or meaning of the confirmation parameter or the role parameter. Given low coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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?

Description clearly states the tool invites one non-owner user after exact email confirmation. The verb 'invite' and resource 'user' are specific, and the qualifier 'non-owner' distinguishes from any potential owner invite tool. No sibling tool has a similar purpose, so differentiation is inherent.

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?

Description provides context that the tool should be used after exact email confirmation, implying a prerequisite. Although there are no alternative sibling tools for inviting users, the condition is clear. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the single-purpose nature reduces ambiguity.

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