wafle_invitations_create

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

The annotation provides destructiveHint:false and openWorldHint:false, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it sends an invitation email with a magic link and requires specific permissions. This goes beyond the structured annotations and informs the agent of side effects.

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 two short, focused sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides the key prerequisite. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 relatively simple creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the side effect (email with magic link), and the permission requirement. Minor gaps like which tenant identifier to provide are not fully clarified, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), including the role enum, email format, and the alternative tenant_id/tenant_slug. The description does not add more parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already includes, so a baseline score 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 the action (invite) and the object (teammate to a tenant by email), differentiating it from sibling tools like wafle_members_list and wafle_members_update_role. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite that the actor must be an owner or admin of the target tenant, which guides when this tool can be used. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough among the sibling tools.

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