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 states the tool creates/updates and sends an invite, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., idempotency, overwriting existing user fields) or permission requirements beyond the mentioned keys. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 clear sentence. It is concise and front-loads the core action. However, it could include more context without becoming verbose.

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 5 parameters (3 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the return value, the concept of a 'trusted invite magic link', or the role of optional parameters like 'client_state'. More details are needed for a complete understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond the schema. It mentions 'service_key' and 'redirect_url' but these are already documented in 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 clearly states it creates/updates an auth user and sends an invite magic link. It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'create_auth_user' (just create) and 'request_magic_link' (just send link) by combining actions.

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 prerequisites (service_key and allowed redirect_url) but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_auth_user' or 'request_magic_link'. No explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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