Invite to board

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds the requirement for ADMIN/OWNER permission, which is useful context. It does not describe the invitation acceptance flow or behavior on duplicate invites, but given annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action, target, method, and permission requirement. No wasted words, and all key information is front-loaded.

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 schema covers all parameters and annotations disclose safety traits, the description is mostly complete. It fails to mention that board_id or board_slug is likely needed to identify the board, but the schema allows this to be inferred. Overall, it is sufficient for a well-documented tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the role enum but doesn't add new meaning beyond what the schema provides. It also doesn't clarify how board_id vs board_slug are used.

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 exactly what the tool does: 'Invite a user to board by email with role ADMIN/MEMBER/VIEWER.' It uses a specific verb (invite), identifies the resource (board), and includes the critical dimensions (email, role). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like revoke_board_invitation or accept_board_invitation.

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 clear context: use to invite a user by email with a specified role. It also states the prerequisite permission (ADMIN/OWNER). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the use case is well implied.

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