invitations_create

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: an email is dispatched automatically and the invitation expires after 7 days, which the agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false / openWorldHint=true. It does not cover duplicate-invite behavior or what happens to an existing pending invitation for the same email.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the side effect, lifetime, and role constraint. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter create tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this covers action, side effect, expiry, and role limits. Since there is no output schema, it could have mentioned what the call returns (e.g. the invitation record/id) so the agent knows how to follow up.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by enumerating the assignable roles and stating that OWNER cannot be granted through this tool. The email parameter is only implied ('by email'), with format left entirely to the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Invite a new user to join the organization by email') and makes the delivery channel explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as invitations_resend, invitations_list, invitations_delete, and members_update.

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?

Gives the clear context in which to use it (adding a brand-new user, email-based invitation), which separates it from member management and invitation resend/delete tools. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it, e.g. for already-existing users or pending invitations.

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