sophos_invite_tenant_admin

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

Annotations indicate write (readOnlyHint false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint false). The description adds that an invitation email is sent, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose behaviors like idempotency, error states, or required permissions, which are not covered by 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?

The description is brief and to the point, with two sentences covering the core action and side effect. No wasted words.

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 description lacks details on return values, prerequisites (e.g., needing tenant_id from sophos_list_tenants and role_id from sophos_list_tenant_roles), and success/error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no extra meaning to parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each parameter's purpose.

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 clearly states the tool invites a new administrator to a specific tenant and sends an email, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool sophos_create_tenant_admin, which may also create an admin but likely without an invitation.

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 implies usage for inviting admins, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sophos_create_tenant_admin. There is no explicit 'when-not' or context for selecting this tool.

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