invitations_resend

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

Despite having no annotations, the description does meaningful behavioral disclosure: it states that resending does NOT extend the expiration date, which is a critical behavioral trait users must know. It also outlines the correct fallback behavior for expired invitations. This addresses the main side-effect concern (expiration implications) that would otherwise be unknown.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. It states the core action, the important behavioral caveat (no expiration extension), and the fallback rule. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: what it does, its limitation regarding expiration, and the correct alternative workflow. It could mention whether there are rate limits or prerequisites (e.g., invitation must not be accepted), but for its simplicity it is fairly complete.

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%, so the single parameter 'uuid' is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional param meaning beyond the schema's 'Invitation UUID to resend', but with full coverage the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states it resends an invitation email for a pending invitation, which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes from invitations_create and invitations_delete siblings by the action type, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

It provides clear guidance on when to use this tool: only for pending invitations. It also gives an important operational instruction - if the invitation has expired, cancel and create a new one instead of using this tool. This implies an exclusion criterion (expired invitations), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like invitations_create.

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