invite_auth_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates/updates and sends an invite requiring service_key and redirect_url. However, it omits details about return values, side effects, or what happens on update vs create. The mention of 'service_key' not present in the schema also causes confusion.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences. It front-loads the main action. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format to separate the action from requirements.

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 the complexity (5 parameters, 3 required) and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or side effects. It only states it sends an invite link but does not specify the return value (e.g., success confirmation, user object). This leaves a significant gap for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds minimal additional meaning. It mentions 'requires service_key' which is not in the schema, contradicting the parameter set. It does clarify that 'redirect_url' must be an allowed one and 'is_admin' sets project_admin status, but overall adds little value and introduces confusion.

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 tool creates/updates a project auth user and sends a trusted invite magic link. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_auth_user' (which likely just creates without invite) and 'request_magic_link' (which is for existing 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?

The description mentions required prerequisites ('service_key' and 'allowed redirect_url'), providing basic usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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