update_workspace_invitation

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

The description states 'update the role', which implies a state-modifying operation, and the annotations confirm it is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) nor destructive (destructiveHint=false). However, it does not disclose any side effects, permissions required, or whether the invitation must be in a specific state (e.g., pending). No contradictions with annotations, but little additional transparency beyond what is obvious from the verb 'update'.

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 concise and well-structured. It uses a short introductory sentence and then a bullet-like list for parameter explanations. No fluff or redundant information. Every sentence contributes useful context, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description doesn't need to elaborate on return values. However, the lack of any mention of invitation_id and the absence of guidance on how to obtain it leaves a gap in the overall context. For a simple update operation, the description is mostly sufficient but incomplete in parameter coverage, preventing a higher score.

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 description covers workspace_id (with guidance to get from list_workspaces) and role_id (with enum mapping), but completely omits the invitation_id parameter, which is required. Schema coverage is only 2 out of 3 parameters, leaving the most critical parameter (which invitation to update) unexplained. The description adds some value for two parameters but fails to explain the third, so it does not fully compensate for the sparse schema.

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's purpose: updating the role assigned to a pending workspace invitation. It specifies the action (update role) and the resource (workspace invitation). The role_id mapping adds helpful context. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like delete_workspace_invitation or list_workspace_invitations.

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 provides some guidance: it tells the user to get workspace IDs from list_workspaces() and explains role_id values. However, it does not mention where to obtain the invitation_id (e.g., list_workspace_invitations) or when to use this tool instead of alternatives like invite_to_workspace or update_invitation. The usage context is partially implicit, but lacks explicit direction on parameter sourcing and tool selection.

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