Invite a team member

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

The description clearly discloses that this sends a real email to a real person and grants organizational access upon acceptance. These real-world side effects go well beyond what the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) convey, and there is no contradiction.

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 sentences, no waste. The core action is stated first, followed by the key behavioral warning and the invocation guardrail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, the side effects, the access implications, and the critical condition for calling it. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning to the email parameter by stressing that it must be the exact address the user gave, which prevents guessing or autocomplete behavior. Role semantics are already fully covered by the schema enum.

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 action (sends an invitation) on a clear resource (the organization) with a concrete outcome (grants access once accepted). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling team tools like oneguard_teams_list, oneguard_teams_set_role, and oneguard_teams_remove.

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 gives explicit invocation guardrails: only call it when the user explicitly asked, and only with the exact address they provided. This directly prevents misuse by autonomous agents, which is especially valuable for an action that emails a real person and grants access.

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