Invite a teammate

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explicitly warning that this 'SENDS a real email invite / share link — an account change' and requires confirm:true. It discloses the irreversible, real-world side effect and instructs the agent to verify the exact email and role with the user, which is critical for safe invocation.

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?

Three tight sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, the side-effect warning follows immediately, and the confirmation instruction is placed last as the action gating. 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 a side-effectful invite tool with no output schema, the description covers all essentials: what the tool does, role meaning, the real-world action, and the confirmation requirement. There is enough information for an agent to call it correctly without additional context.

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 is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining the role values ('member = read-only on billing, admin = full') and reinforcing the confirm parameter's requirement. This helps the agent choose the right role and understand the user-facing impact.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Invite someone to this brand workspace by email') and distinguishes this from sibling tools like remove_member and set_role by focusing on adding a teammate with a side-effectful invite. The role semantics are explicitly defined, making the tool's purpose 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?

The description gives clear context for use: invite by email, choose member vs admin, and confirm with the user before calling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context makes it clear this is the tool for inviting new teammates, distinct from set_role or remove_member.

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