Resend an invitation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotency, but the description adds genuinely new context: the old `url` stops working, the new one must be taken from the result, and the invitee's partially started account is preserved so they resume. That is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before a destructive resend.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the destructive consequence, then the state-preservation nuance. No filler and nothing repeated from title or 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by telling the agent to read the new link from the result. Combined with the schema's full parameter coverage and the annotations' safety profile, very little is left unstated; only auth/permission requirements are not addressed.

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%, so invitationId, confirm and idempotencyKey are fully documented in the schema itself, including the consent constraint and the 24-hour retry behavior. The description adds only the outcome semantics of the new link, not parameter-level detail, so baseline 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: give an invitation a new link and expiry and email it again. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_invitation, cancel_invitation and get_invitation, since the action is a resend of an existing invitation.

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 clause 'when it has an inviteeEmail' implies a precondition for use, and the schema's confirm parameter carries the user-consent requirement. However, the description never names alternatives (e.g. cancel_invitation, create_invitation) or states a when-not condition, so routing guidance is only implied.

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