wetrack_resend_invite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and prerequisites. It only states that an invitation email is resent, without mentioning any failure conditions (e.g., user already set password, user not found), authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool with a side effect.

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 extremely concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence and the parameter documentation in a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 that this tool has a side effect (sending an email), the description lacks important context: when it is appropriate to call (e.g., only for users who haven't set password), what happens if the user has already set it, and any permission requirements. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the description is incomplete for a tool with potential failure modes and side effects.

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?

The schema only defines user_id as a string, but the description adds that it can be a UUID or integer ID, which is valuable semantic information beyond the schema. This clarifies the expected format. Since schema coverage is 0% (the description doesn't repeat schema), the description compensates well for the parameter, though it doesn't explain error behavior for invalid IDs.

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 states a specific verb (resend), resource (invitation email), and the condition 'to a user who hasn't set their password yet.' This clearly distinguishes it from general user management tools like create_user or update_user. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tools or differentiate itself from them, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 implies when to use the tool (for users who haven't set their password) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternative tool to use. It doesn't mention that this tool is inappropriate for users who have already set their password, nor does it reference alternatives like wetrack_forgot_password. This is adequate but lacks explicit routing.

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