todoist_project_invite

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states that the invitee receives an email, but does not mention permissions needed, side effects (e.g., whether the user is immediately added), potential error states (e.g., invalid email, already collaborator), or idempotency.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The action and key behavior are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It covers the basic purpose and one behavioral outcome (email notification). Missing details about required roles, possible errors, or response format would be useful but are not critical for this straightforward operation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it clarifies that the email parameter is for the invitee and that the message is optional. However, it does not provide details like format constraints or relationship between parameters.

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 action: invite a user by email to collaborate on a project. It specifies the verb (invite), resource (user + project), and method (email). Among sibling tools like todoist_invitation_accept and todoist_invitation_delete, this is distinctly for initiating an 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., todoist_project_collaborators_get to view existing collaborators) or prerequisites (e.g., must be project owner). The description is self-contained but lacks context for appropriate use.

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