invite_member

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals the real-world side effect (sending an email), the authentication/role requirements, and all notable rejection cases such as already-member, pending invite, and member limit. This gives an agent a complete behavioral model without needing to invoke the 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, side effect, permissions, role constraints, failure modes, and team-targeting context are all covered in about four sentences. The core action is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition that would dilute an agent's attention.

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 tool with side effects, authorization constraints, and multiple failure paths, the description covers all the contextual information an agent needs: how the active tenant is determined, how to switch it, what roles are available, and exactly when the call will fail. The output schema covers the return shape, so the description need not expand further.

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?

The schema already covers the role enum and the default, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that 'viewer' is read-only, that no one can be invited as owner, and that the invite fails for already-member or already-pending emails. This goes beyond the raw schema definitions and informs role choices.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Invite someone to the active team (tenant) by email.' It also states the side effect (sends an invitation email) and return value (the join link), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from other team-management tools.

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?

It explicitly says when the call is permitted (team owner or admin only) and rejected for other roles, and it gives concrete routing guidance: operate on the currently targeted team first, using list_my_tenants / switch_active_tenant to change teams. It also names the failure conditions that would make the call invalid.

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