update_asset_group_invite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Update' which implies mutation, but does not disclose permissions required, whether the update is partial, reversibility, side effects, or response behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a mutating operation.

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 sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

With 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the 'message' parameter, the effect of the update, or expected response, leaving a user uncertain about correct invocation and outcomes.

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 low (33%: only 'id' is described). The description adds meaning to the 'role' parameter via the example 'change role', but leaves the 'message' parameter completely unexplained. It partially compensates for the schema gap but does not fully cover all parameters.

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?

Description states 'Update an asset group invite' with a specific verb and resource, and gives a concrete example ('e.g. change role') that clarifies scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_asset_group_invite, get_asset_group_invite, and delete_asset_group_invite.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The parenthetical example 'e.g. change role' implies a use case, but the description does not state when not to use the tool or how it relates to other invite-related operations.

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