invite_contributor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a passwordless Clerk invite is sent and that one seat is consumed regardless of project count, plus the owner-only and Team-tier requirements. However, it omits duplicate-invite handling, invite expiration, whether the invite can be revoked, and other side effects.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core action and the most important constraints are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical prerequisites (owner only, Team tier) and the notable seat behavior. It is nearly complete, missing only edge-case behavior such as what happens when the email is already associated with a member.

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 50%. The projectIds parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description repeats 'projects you own' without adding format or validation detail. The email parameter has no schema description, and the description adds only that an invite is sent 'by email', which is minimal.

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 states a specific verb (invite), resource (guest contributor), channel (by email), and scope (one or more projects you own). It clearly distinguishes a guest contributor invite from generic member or agent seat operations, though it does not name an alternative sibling tool explicitly.

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?

It supplies clear contextual constraints: owner only and Team tier. This tells an agent when the tool is applicable, but it does not state when-not to use it or route to alternative tools like add_agent_seat for non-guest seats.

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