create_invite

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'create', which is already evident from the tool name. It does not mention side effects like email sending (implied by send_email parameter), permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens on creation. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. No unnecessary words are present. While it lacks detail, the conciseness itself is appropriate; the issue is incompleteness, not verbosity.

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 the tool has 6 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain parameter relationships, required fields, defaults, or expected behavior. This is severely incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about parameters such as slug, email, name, role, send_email, or expires_days. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation, leaving agents to guess meanings of all six parameters.

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 the verb 'create', the resource 'assessment invitation', and the scope 'single', which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling bulk_invite. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does without needing to inspect the schema.

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 word 'single' implies this is for one invitation at a time, indirectly suggesting bulk_invite for multiple. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, leaving usage context only implied.

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