Accept an invitation

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the side effect of joining an organization, the return value ('Returns the joined org'), and specific failure modes with status codes (403 for wrong recipient, 402 for plan lapse/downgrade). This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations.

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 sentences pack the core action, outcome, return value, and error conditions with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded and every clause 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?

For a single-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: what action is performed, who it applies to, what is returned, and what error conditions exist. No critical information needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%: the single required parameter inviteId is documented in the schema with a helpful source hint ('from list_my_invites'). The description does not add further parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Accept'), a specific resource ('an invitation addressed to the token user's email'), and the outcome ('joining that organisation at the invited role'). It also notes the return value, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like invite_member or revoke_invite.

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 clearly implies when to use it: for invitations addressed to the authenticated user's email, via an invite id. The 403 error condition communicates a boundary (do not accept invitations meant for others), and the schema points to list_my_invites as the source of the id. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or saying 'when not to use', but context is clear.

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