Create (invite) user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add the valuable side effect detail that a welcome email and WhatsApp invite are sent, which is beyond the tool name. However, it omits other important behavior such as what happens to a user before they accept the invite, whether admin permissions are required, or whether this action is reversible.

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 two short sentences, each earning its place: one defines the primary action and resource, the other names the key side effects. There is no verbosity or repetition.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It gives no sense of required prerequisites, invitation flow, activation status, or success/failure return information. The only added context beyond the schema are the email/WhatsApp invite mentions, which are insufficient for dependable invocation.

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 13%, so the description should compensate the missing meaning for the 8 parameters. It does not mention or explain any parameter, not even the required email or the ambiguous `role` vs `securityRole` fields. Agents are left with only the raw schema and must infer what each optional field is for.

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 names the action explicitly: 'Create an organization user (team member)' with verb and resource, and adds a distinguishing behavior, 'Sends a welcome email + WhatsApp invite.' It clearly separates this from siblings like gambot_update_user or gambot_disable_user because it is the creation/invitation action.

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 is given for when to select this tool over sibling tools such as gambot_update_user, gambot_enable_user, or gambot_delete_user. The description does not cover edge cases like pre-existing users, invitations, or when an invite rather than a fully provisioned account would be expected.

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