sophos_invite_tenant_admin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the API endpoint and that an invitation email is sent, but does not specify whether the admin is immediately active, any required permissions, side effects, or what the response contains. 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 extremely concise with two sentences that cover the essential information. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and 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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides sufficient information for a simple invite action. However, it omits details about the response format, error handling, or what happens after the invitation is sent. For a tool of this complexity, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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 schema already includes clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., role_id references sophos_list_tenant_roles). The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Invite a new administrator'), the resource ('administrator'), and the context ('to a specific tenant via the common API'). It also notes that the admin will receive an invitation email. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like sophos_create_tenant_admin or sophos_update_tenant_admin.

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 the tool is for inviting an admin but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as sophos_create_tenant_admin, which might create an admin without an invitation. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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