Invite a teammate

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and not idempotent, but the description adds critical behavioral detail: it SENDS a real email invite/share link and is an account change. It also mandates confirm:true, which is not in annotations. This goes beyond the structured metadata and is highly relevant for an agent to understand the real-world impact.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the critical warning about confirming with the user and needing confirm:true. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 an invitation tool that sends a real email, the description covers the essential behavioral and usage constraints. It doesn't describe the return format, but that is not critical for calling the tool correctly. The role meanings and confirmation requirement are the key details, and they are present.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema for role (explains permissions) and for confirm (emphasizes it's required to actually send). This is valuable clarification that the schema's brief descriptions do not provide.

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 verb (invite), the resource (someone to this brand workspace), and the method (by email). It also explains the role semantics (member read-only on billing, admin full), which distinguishes it from other team management tools like remove_member or set_role. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It provides clear context: use to invite someone by email, and it warns to confirm the exact email and role with the user and call with confirm:true. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient for correct invocation.

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