invite_project_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the core action and default session behavior, but fails to mention permissions required, whether the invitation is immediate or pending, if an email is sent, or any side effects. Important behavioral details are missing.

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 very concise, using only two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the key action and adds a practical note about session defaulting. However, it could benefit from slight restructuring to separate parameter details, but overall it is efficient.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (inviting users with roles) and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. While the output schema may cover return format, the agent lacks contextual information about success/failure states 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, relying only on property titles. The description partially compensates by explaining that session_id defaults to a session, but does not clarify the meaning or constraints of project_id, email, or role_id (e.g., valid role format, email must belong to a registered user). This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 action: 'Invites a user to a project by email with a specific role.' It uses a specific verb (invites) and identifies the resource (user to project), making the purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from sibling tools like assign_issue_to_user by focusing on invitation rather than assignment.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions using the default session if session_id is not provided, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to invite vs. assign) or any preconditions (e.g., user not already a member). This leaves the agent without context for selecting the tool appropriately.

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