plane-workspace-invite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the user must accept the invite (non-immediate effect) and maps role numbers. However, it does not mention idempotency, email triggers, limits, or error cases. The description adds some value beyond the schema but is not comprehensive.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action, the second adds necessary context about acceptance and roles. There is no redundancy or fluff; every word 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic action and role mapping. However, it omits details about return value, error conditions, or how to proceed after invitation (e.g., adding to projects). The mention of acceptance is helpful but incomplete for a full understanding.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description reiterates the role mapping already present in the schema, adding no new meaning. The email parameter is sufficiently described in the schema. The description provides no additional clarification beyond schema.

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 action ('Invite a user') and the resource ('to the workspace by email'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'plane-workspace-invitation-delete' and 'plane-workspace-invitation-list' by specifying the creation action. The role number mapping adds further specificity.

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 context that the invite must be accepted before adding to projects, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if an invite already exists). It does not state when not to use it or mention any prerequisites.

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