create_invite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds two pieces of context not in the annotations: the invite consumes a seat in the team limit and the call requires the `team:write` scope. It omits link expiry, whether the link is returned in the response, and any rate-limit or duplicate-invite behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler. The side effect (seat consumption) is front-loaded in parentheses and the auth requirement follows immediately, which is exactly the order an agent needs.

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 zero-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, its cost, and its auth requirement. The remaining gap is the return value: it does not say whether the created invite link itself comes back, or whether the agent must call list_invites to retrieve it.

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 zero parameters, there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies the operation is parameterless and that the invite's attributes are server-determined rather than caller-supplied.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an invite link') and adds a material scope note (counts against the seat limit). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_invites and cancel_invite by the verb alone, though it never names those siblings or contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers 'use this when you want a new invite link.' There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites beyond the scope string, and no routing to alternatives such as list_invites to check existing invites first.

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