invite_team_member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the action and return value but does not disclose side effects (e.g., sending an invitation email), potential errors (e.g., duplicate invitation), or permissions needed. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, using a front-loaded main sentence followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence is informative, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 three required parameters and no annotations, the description explains the parameters and return value but lacks information on permissions, error handling, and behavioral nuances (e.g., idempotency, email delivery). It is functional but not fully comprehensive for a new user.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning: team_id is identifier, email is User email, role is User role with allowed values listed ('owner' or 'developer'). This adds clear value beyond the schema's bare type declarations.

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 team member') and identifies the resource (team member) and context ('to your team'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tool 'delete_team_member'.

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 parameter details but does not explicitly state when to use the tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions) or conditions to avoid (e.g., if the user is already a member). It implies usage context but lacks explicit guidance.

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