sprrint_workspace_invite

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'invite' and the role format, but does not disclose consequences like sending an email, creating a pending invitation, duplicate handling, or whether the invitee must accept.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then states the role constraint. No redundant words or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the core call requirements (email and role). However, absence of annotations and output schema leaves gaps about invitation flow, error conditions, and post-invite state, making it only minimally adequate for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by defining role as 'member|admin', which clarifies the only non-obvious parameter. Email is self-explanatory. However, it does not elaborate on email format or role default behavior beyond what the schema shows.

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 states a specific action ('Invite someone to the workspace by email') with a clear resource and method. The verb 'invite' differentiates it from sibling member-management tools like workspace_set_role or remove_member, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_set_role, workspace_remove_member, or projects_add_member. The context is implied by the verb 'invite', but no exclusions or conditions are provided.

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