users_admin_invite

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility but only adds 'legacy undocumented' which hints at instability. No disclosure of permissions needed, side effects (e.g., workspace member limit), or response format beyond the existence of an output 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?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but under-specification reduces its value. While it avoids verbosity, it does not earn its place due to missing critical details.

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?

Given 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema likely containing status or errors, the description is entirely inadequate. It fails to explain return values, permission requirements, or parameter usage, leaving agent without sufficient 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the 3 parameters (email, channels, real_name). It fails to explain constraints, defaults, or how channels and real_name affect the invite.

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 'Invite a user to the workspace as admin' uses a specific verb (Invite) and resource (user workspace as admin), making the purpose clear. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like users_admin_set_inactive that deactivate users.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., users_admin_set_inactive, users_invite if it exists). There are no prerequisites, success conditions, or exclusions mentioned.

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