add_template_collaborator

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that providing an email 'triggers an invitation email', which adds some context beyond the basic action. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, if the link expires, or what happens on failure. For a tool that likely modifies access permissions, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action ('creates a HTTPS link') and adds conditional behavior ('sends an invitation email if an email is provided'). There is no wasted text, and every part earns its place by clarifying the tool's functionality.

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 complexity (a tool that likely modifies access and sends emails), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or side effects, leaving the agent with significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively.

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 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal value: it echoes that email 'triggers an invitation email', which is already in the schema's email description. It doesn't explain 'template_id' (the required parameter) or 'name' beyond what the schema provides. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't significantly compensate for gaps.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('creates a HTTPS link', 'sends an invitation email') and identifies the resource ('contract template'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_template' or 'update_template' by focusing on collaboration rather than template creation or modification. However, it doesn't explicitly mention 'collaborator' in the description despite the tool name, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing template), exclusions (e.g., not for removing collaborators), or compare it to sibling tools like 'remove_template_collaborator' or 'list_template_collaborators'. The agent must infer usage from the description alone.

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