add_collaborator

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that invitees must accept GitHub invitation before pushing, requires gh CLI authenticated with admin, and returns the clone URL. These are critical behavioral traits not inferable from schema.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, parameters, and caveats. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers action, when to use, parameter syntax, prerequisites, return value, and invitation acceptance flow. Complete for a simple tool with an output schema.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description fully explains github_username with format and examples, and permission with allowed values and default, adding all necessary semantics beyond raw schema.

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?

Specific verb 'Invite' and resource 'collaborators on the shared repo' clearly defined. Distinguishes from sibling provision by explicitly stating provision does this only during first-time setup, while this tool is for existing repos.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when the repo already exists and you just want to grant partners access.' Names provision() as an alternative and clarifies the difference. Also notes prerequisite authentication and invitation acceptance.

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