Invite People To OneDrive Item

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It clearly states the core side effect (granting read/write access) and the optional invitation. However, it does not disclose whether existing permissions are replaced, whether the caller needs special ownership rights, or what happens if recipients already have access. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core English action, and the Chinese intent mapping adds useful multilingual coverage without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity, the 100% schema coverage, and the absence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the action and its optional invitation behavior. It could be improved by noting how this relates to permission replacement or invite vs. share-link flows, but it is not incomplete for selection purposes.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context by mentioning 'selected people' (recipients), 'read or write access' (roles), and 'optionally send an invitation' (sendInvitation), but it does not add detail beyond what the schema already provides for message, itemId, or requireSignIn.

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 action: 'Grant selected people read or write access to a OneDrive item and optionally send an invitation.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of OneDrive plus 'selected people' distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_create_share_link (link-based sharing) and sharepoint_invite_drive_item (SharePoint-specific).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. For example, it does not clarify whether to prefer this over drive_create_share_link for link-based sharing or sharepoint_invite_drive_item for SharePoint items. Usage context is only implied by the action itself.

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