Invite tribe members

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

Annotations only show readOnlyHint=false and destructive=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits: partial success per invitee, exact outcome categories, automatic acceptance on page visit, explicit join via API, and the 400 for public tribes. This is rich, useful context beyond the raw annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, then batch behavior, then acceptance mechanics, then the public-tribe restriction. Every sentence contributes a distinct piece of information and there is no filler.

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?

With only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: authorization requirements, private/public constraints, per-invitee resolution, and possible outcomes. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, which earns the baseline. The description adds value by explaining that invitees are resolved independently and each gets its own outcome, which changes how an agent should reason about batch failures. It reinforces the tribeId UUID/private-tribe constraint already in the schema.

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 ('invite'), a specific resource ('PRIVATE tribe you own, or any as an admin'), and the input method ('by username or email'). It also distinguishes this from public-tribe join flows by explicitly saying public tribes return 400.

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 clearly specifies when this tool is appropriate: inviting people into a private tribe, with admin override. It also says public tribes are already open and invitations there return 400. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like join_tribe or invite_jurors, but the context provides enough routing guidance.

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