invite_workspace_member

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds two things annotations cannot: that it requires the caller's OAuth token, and that each call can send a new invite (implying repeated calls produce repeated emails rather than being deduplicated). It stops short of saying what happens if the person is already a member.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose first, then the membership-check pointer, then the org-level exclusion, then auth and repetition behavior. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With one fully documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: scope, alternative, auth requirement, and repeat-call behavior. It omits failure semantics (invalid email, already-a-member), which would be the last useful addition.

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 single parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the meaning. The description adds only that the invite is scoped to 'the current workspace,' which is context rather than parameter syntax. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (invite), resource (workspace member), cardinality (one person) and channel (by email). It also names create_organization_user as the adjacent but different operation, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tooling without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the alternatives and the boundary: use list_workspace_members to check existing membership, and use create_organization_user if the intent is to add to an organization rather than a workspace. Both a when-to-use check and a when-not-to-use exclusion are present.

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