clickup_user_invite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it consumes a member seat (cost/implication), returns the created user object (output format), and distinguishes between paid members vs. external collaborators. It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or permission requirements, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second adds critical behavioral context (seat consumption and alternative tool), third describes return value. Every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with essential information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong context: purpose, behavioral implications (seat consumption), alternative tool guidance, and return value description. It doesn't cover error cases or authentication requirements, but does well given the complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Invite a new paid member'), target resource ('ClickUp workspace'), and method ('by email'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning clickup_guest_invite as an alternative for different use cases.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Invite a new paid member') versus when to use an alternative ('For external collaborators who shouldn't have full access, use clickup_guest_invite instead'). It also references another tool for prerequisite information ('see clickup_workspace_seats for availability').

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