Invite a teammate

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

Annotations only flag destructive/openWorld/idempotency; the description adds the crucial real-world side effect that an actual email invite or share link is SENT, that this is an account change, and that confirm:true is mandatory. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences: the action and role mapping come first, the irreversible side effect and confirmation step second. No filler, and the most important warning is front-loaded before the call instructions.

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?

Despite no output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing: it knows the target resource, the role semantics, the required confirmation flag, and the externally visible consequence of calling. For a mutation with clear annotations, this is complete.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: member = read-only on billing, admin = full, and it reinforces the confirm requirement in prose. Only the email parameter gets no extra explanation, which the name already covers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Invite someone to this profile by email') and immediately disambiguates the role enum. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like remove_member or list_team without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear precondition sequence: confirm the exact email + role with the user, then call with confirm:true. It doesn't name alternative tools or exclusions, but for a single-purpose invite action the when-to-use guidance is essentially complete.

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