Resend Invitation

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: that it specifically targets 'pending' invitations and sends an email. It does not explain error conditions or side effects of repeated sends, but the annotation about idempotency covers that.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It states the action and the target in eleven words, earning a perfect score for efficiency and clarity.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does (resends an email), the precondition (pending invitation), and the resource type. No further detail is needed for effective use.

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% with 'id' described as 'Membership id'. The description enriches this by clarifying that the id refers to a pending project invitation, giving the parameter its operational context. This goes beyond the bare schema definition.

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 uses the specific verb 'resend' and identifies the resource as 'pending project invitation email', clearly distinguishing it from other membership actions like create, update, or delete. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 context is clear: use this when a pending project invitation email needs to be resent. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools, which would push it to a 5. For such a simple operation, the implied usage is sufficient.

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