Invite a Micro project member

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

Annotations only mark readOnly=false and idempotent=false, so the description's addition of 'single-use' and 'Email' gives concrete side-effect context: it sends an email and creates a one-time invitation. It does not cover auth requirements or revocation, but it adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

One efficient sentence with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded and all key qualifiers fit into a single readable line.

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 5-param mutating tool with an output schema and annotations, the description plus schema covers the essential call. The only notable gap is lack of guidance about the required confirm flag and path selection, but the schema contains that information.

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?

Despite schema coverage at 40%, the description supplies meaning for email, role, and canPromote by referring to 'Email', 'explicit role', and 'optional promotion authority'. It leaves path and confirm to the schema, which already documents their behavior, so the division is reasonable.

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?

States a specific action (Email), a specific resource (one single-use project invitation), and the key qualifiers (explicit role, optional promotion authority). This distinguishes it from siblings like micro_invitations (list) and micro_invitation_revoke (revoke).

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 use when you need to send an invitation to a Micro project member, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools such as micro_member_set, or when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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