invite_team_member

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description transparently discloses important side effects: it creates a pending invitation, emails an accept link, and reserves a seat until acceptance. It also exposes the failure condition for single-seat plans and the role default, giving the agent a much fuller behavioral model than annotations alone.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence states the core action and return value, the second details side effects, the third covers prerequisites and error behavior, and the last two give practical guidance and the role default. It is information-dense but not padded.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything the agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it returns, side effects, prerequisites, failure modes, and how to check current membership via list_team_members. There are no critical gaps.

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%, and both parameters (email, role) already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds the default role and contextual meaning ('by email'), but does not significantly deepen the agent's understanding of the parameters beyond the schema itself. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Invite someone to the caller's organization by email and return the pending invite.' It clearly states the resource (team/organization membership) and the action (inviting), distinguishing it from team-management siblings like list_team_members and remove_team_member by describing the resulting pending invite and email flow.

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 clear context: prerequisites (admin role, available seats), a named failure case (single-seat plans fail with seats_not_available), and points to list_team_members to see existing members. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool or compare it to update_team_member_role/remove_team_member, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to apply it appropriately.

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