invite_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the permission requirement, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects such as sending an invite email, behavior for existing users, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the permission requirement and clearly states the action. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action and permission. However, it lacks important context such as what happens after the invite is sent, whether the invitee must accept, or any preconditions beyond the permission. This leaves room for misinterpretation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains 'role' implicitly ('given role') but does not describe 'email' or 'name'. The enum for role is present in the schema, but the description adds no details about email format, name expectations, or how parameters relate to the invite process.

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 uses a specific verb ('invite') and resource ('user to the workspace'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like change_user_role, remove_user, or suspend_user. It states the primary action and the role parameter, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 includes a required permission context ([requires: users.invite]) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like change_user_role or inviting existing users. It implies a scenario but does not state exclusions or preferred use cases.

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