tc_add_project_user

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the environment variable requirement, the PENDING status until the invitee opens the project, and the notify flag controlling email sending. It also discloses the return shape with {'invited': true}, giving a clear picture of side effects and outcomes.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a condition line, a labeled Args block, and a return note. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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 has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, prerequisite, parameter semantics, side effects (PENDING status), and return value. The output schema existence means details of the return object are not required, and the description still gives the key field {'invited': true}, making it fully self-sufficient.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates fully by explicitly documenting every parameter: project_id, email, role (with default and allowed values, plus cross-reference to tc_list_project_roles), and notify (with default and effect). This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema titles.

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 opens with 'Invite a user to a project by email,' which states the core action, resource, and method. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like tc_update_project_user and tc_remove_project_user by indicating the specific operation of adding/inviting a new member.

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 provides a clear prerequisite (TC_ENABLE_WRITE=1) and references tc_list_project_roles as a check for valid role values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as tc_update_project_user, or mention scenarios where this tool should not be used, leaving usage guidance mostly implied.

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