Invite to space (by email)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the two branching behaviors, the fact that an email is sent to a third party when no account exists, the auth constraint ('space owner only, write scope'), and the eventual auto-grant on signup. None of this is derivable from the structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence carries information (outcomes, role, alternatives). It is dense with caps and parentheticals, which is slightly heavy for a 3-parameter tool, but nothing is 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?

Given a mutation tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything the schema and annotations do not: prerequisites (space ownership/write scope), the outward email side effect, the conditional return shape, and the path to alternatives. An agent can invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 the baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by restating the role enum with its default (viewer) and the owner-only restriction on space_id. That is useful reinforcement rather than new syntax-level detail.

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 precise verb+resource (give a person access to a space) and immediately narrows the mechanism to EMAIL ADDRESS, distinguishing it from sibling sharing tools. The response-shape summary ({member} vs {invite}) makes the two outcomes unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('onboard someone who has no tela account') and when not to ('to add an existing user you already know by username, or to change/remove access, use the app's space sharing UI'). That is a direct routing rule away from alternatives, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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