create_invite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this action likely sends an email, creates a pending invite record, or requires specific permissions. The description simply restates the action without revealing side effects, reversibility, or the state of the created invite. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.

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, short sentence, which is concise, but it is also under-specified, relying almost entirely on the tool name and schema for meaning. It is not poorly structured, but it does not earn its place by adding unique information. It is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the invite lifecycle, return value, and restrictions. It does not mention that multiple email addresses can be invited at once, that role_level must be an available role, or that the invite will need acceptance. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is incomplete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 67%, covering email and note but leaving role_level (an enum with no description) unexplained. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; it does not clarify role_level values, the comma/semicolon multi-email format, or the optional note's purpose. Since the description does not compensate for the uncovered parameter, it fails to provide value beyond 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 'Invite a user to the organization' clearly states the action (invite), the target resource (user), and the scoping context (organization). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_asset_group_invite (which invites to an asset group) and accept_invite (which accepts an invitation). This is a specific verb+resource construction that leaves no ambiguity.

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 implies its usage for creating an invite, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as list_invites, resend_invite, or check_invite_email. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions. The usage context is implied but not made explicit.

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