invite-member

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the HTTP method (POST), indicating a write operation, and the required scope (members:write). However, it does not mention side effects such as whether an invitation email is sent, whether an existing member causes an error, or what the response contains.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, endpoint, and required permission. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple two-parameter write operation, the description covers purpose and authentication scope. However, with no annotations and no output schema, important operational details—like duplicate handling, invitation workflow, and expected response—are absent, leaving a noticeable gap for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented as 'Team role name' and 'Invitee email'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Invite a member by email') and the exact resource and HTTP endpoint (POST /api/public/members). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list-members, get-member, and change-member-role.

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 implies this is for adding a new member, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus change-member-role for role adjustments or list-members/get-member for reading. No alternatives are named, so usage context must be inferred from the verb 'invite'.

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