invitations_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the auto-email behavior, the 7-day expiration, and the OWNER restriction. However, it does not mention whether the sender must hold admin privileges, whether duplicates are rejected, or what happens if the email is already registered. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, some additional behavioral context (permissions required, idempotency) would strengthen it.

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?

Three sentences, zero redundancy - each sentence adds a distinct fact (action, email behavior, roles/expiry). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates all constraints. Slightly more could be stated about permissions but overall appropriately sized.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core facts: what it does, side effects (auto email), expiration, and role restrictions. However, it lacks guidance on permission requirements for the acting user and what the response/return value looks like. Given the relative simplicity of this tool, these gaps are moderate, not severe.

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 100%, with both parameters (email and role) well-documented in the schema itself. The description redundantly restates the role enum values but adds minimal value beyond the schema. The 7-day expiration and email-sending behavior provide context about expected inputs though. This is the baseline 3 for full coverage.

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 verb (Invite), resource (new user), and method (by email), distinguishing it from siblings invitations_list, invitations_delete, and invitations_resend. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 explicitly notes that an invitation email is sent automatically and that invitations expire after 7 days, giving clear context for when this is appropriate. The role enumeration (cannot invite as OWNER) provides an implicit constraint. It doesn't name specific alternative tools, but the sibling set (list/delete/resend) makes the differentiation fairly natural.

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