taskhub_org_invite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the action but omits side effects such as whether an invitation email is sent, permission requirements, duplicate-invite behavior, or reversibility. For a mutating tool, this is a notable gap.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and key scoping nouns, making it easy to scan, though it is minimal rather than richly informative.

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 simple three-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, the description is sufficient to identify the operation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral and usage context that would help an agent understand consequences, prerequisites, and alternative routing.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the role enum and default. The description adds only 'by email,' which loosely maps to the email parameter but does not meaningfully extend parameter understanding beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Invite'), resource ('a user'), target ('an organization'), and method ('by email'). It clearly conveys the core operation and differentiates it from project-level invite tools through the 'organization' scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set includes taskhub_project_invite, taskhub_org_create, and taskhub_org_members, but the description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions such as 'use this when adding an existing user to an organization.'

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