Invite Contacts

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

Goes beyond the annotations by naming the side effects explicitly: access sharing, notifications to invitees, and possible provider charges, plus the confirm=true gate required for the mutation. Annotations already flag destructive/open-world, but the description adds real operational context about the consequences of inviting.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then separates permissions and the confirm requirement into their own block. Slight redundancy in repeating the 'each entry becomes a new contact' rule that already appears in the schema.

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 five-parameter mutation tool with a nested payload and no output schema, the description covers permissions, the confirm gate, accepted input formats, and side effects. It leaves the account/payload/payload_file parameter relationships to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage there.

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 all five parameters are already documented structurally. The description restates the separator format and contact-creation behavior, which duplicates the schema's own contacts description rather than adding new meaning.

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 and resource ('Invites one or more people to the account by email') with the input format, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. No sibling tool performs the same invite action, so explicit differentiation isn't needed, but it also isn't provided.

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?

Provides useful prerequisites (required permission level and confirm=true), which implies when the tool is callable, but never states when to prefer it over alternatives or what conditions should prevent invocation. Usage context is inferred rather than spelled out.

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