invite_beta_tester

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns that the action is irreversible ('cannot be recalled') and that it triggers a real email, which is significant context beyond the bare 'invite' verb. It doesn't mention return behavior, but the key side effects are disclosed.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a necessary caveat. Every word earns its place, and the most important warning is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers the main action, a critical side effect, and a Pro feature restriction. It doesn't explain what happens after the invite, but for a simple action with good schema support, this is adequate.

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?

The input schema already covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for 'confirm' by explaining that it must be set to true and that it sends a real, non-recallable email. This goes beyond the schema's 'Required. Sends a real email...' by emphasizing the irreversibility.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Invite an external tester by email and add them to a beta group.' This clearly identifies the action and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_beta_groups or assign_build_to_group. It also adds a 'Pro feature' tag, which provides useful scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, including the critical requirement 'Needs confirm:true' and the consequence that Apple emails a real person. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, which keeps it just below a 5.

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