Resends the email for a pending invitation without extending its expiration; if the invitation has expired, cancel it and create a new one instead.
Resend the invitation email for a pending invitation. Does not extend the expiration date. If the invitation has expired, cancel it and create a new one instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid | Yes | Invitation UUID to resend |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: an email is dispatched, the expiration date is not extended, and the expired case must be handled via cancel+create. It stops short of stating permissions or rate limits.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the key caveat and the edge-case fallback. Nothing redundant.
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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and the expired-invitation edge case. It could say whether the recipient address can be changed or what a success/failure response looks like, but nothing critical is missing.
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% for the single uuid parameter, so the schema already explains it. The description only implicitly constrains uuid to a pending invitation; baseline 3 applies.
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 (resend) and resource (invitation email) and narrows the scope to pending invitations. An agent can distinguish this from invitations_create and invitations_delete without opening the schema.
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?
Names the precondition (pending invitation) and explicitly routes the agent elsewhere when it fails: cancel the expired invitation and create a new one. That is a concrete alternative workflow rather than an implied one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.